And the Double Standard Award goes to . . .

Hypocrisy.  and out of his gourd. 

Geez.

 

I guess I see where Larry was coming from to pull Brokeback Mountain. The press was hard to ignore. After all, few movies get much press at all for their subtle, underlying evil, and most movies have subtle ugliness somewhere. But if Larry were to pull every objectionable program from his TV station, there'd be no television left for Utah apart from the few innocent TV shows left. Let's see, that would probably leave only children's programming. BR>

Here's a quote from lds.org/newsroom

"Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Much of today's television programming is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result."

"Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Much of today's television programming is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result."

good quote, Angela. Thanks. But I still see a lot of hypocrisy in what Miller did. If he wanted to pull it, go ahead - he's a businessman and he's the one who pumped up the sales for all the theaters around the valley that WERE showing the flick. But he should've kept quiet about it if he still wanted to maintain some modicom of respectability.

Again - I support his decision, but he shot himself in the foot by claiming to be standing by "traditional family values" and then show what else he shows.

but he shot himself in the foot by claiming to be standing by "traditional family values" and then show what else he shows.

I watched both Brokeback and Will and grace, and I have to say that I find Will and Grace far more offensive than Brokeback.  I mean, I even quit watching W&G because it was so preoccupied with sex and gay sex and even more sex.  It takes a lot of offend me, but W&G did it.

hey!  Lay off Cheers! 

But I agree.  Dont stand on a principal unless you are ready to stand on it!  He clearly is not.

It takes a lot of offend me, but W&G did it.

The same happened to me. I used to really enjoy that show, but it seemed that the more sex-oriented it got, the less funny. So I gave up trying to watch that show. Oh well, no real loss.

hey! Lay off Cheers!

I know, I love Cheers too, but what can you say? Scott Pierce must not be that big a fan. Plus, he bashes on Leathal Weapon, and that movie's hillarious.

Plus, he bashes on Leathal Weapon, and that movie's hillarious.

But it is violent (his slam), so I cant argue there.

But it is violent (his slam), so I cant argue there.

True, true. But knowing Scott Pierce personally I can honestly say that he does enjoy that movie, I was just giving him a bad time hoping he might stick his head over here . . .

In fact, he enjoys many of the programs he slams in that article, but he has a good point. None of those programs are "paragons of virtue".

But I still see a lot of hypocrisy in what Miller did.

Yeah, if he really wanted to stand for family values, he'd be better off earning his living far away from TV, movies, basketball, and car dealerships. But let's face it, the guy knows where the money is.

But let's face it, the guy knows where the money is.

I think you're right, Angela. He knows how to make money - that's why he can own a million car dealerships, a professional basketball team, a minor league baseball team, three theaters, and is building a racing complex. I suppose that's why I don't think I could be involved in business like that - too much shady stuff occurs.

It's not hypocrissy or double standard, it's just a guy who has the right to decide what films he wants to offer at his theaters and which films he doesn't want to offer.

If you ask me, Brokeback Mountain's ONLY claim to any kind of box office returns was the unwarranted hype anyway. The producers, investors and anyone who had anythign to do with this film should thank their lucky stars. The hype alone took what was in effect a 3rd rate chick flick and made it into a condendor for an oscar.

If you ask me the double standard is on everyone who tried to make anyone else feel guilty for not wanting to see this film. If homosexuality "doesn't matter" then when on earth are the activists going to start living as if it doesn't.

You do bring out an excellent point though. TV shows like Will & Grace, Soap, ER and others can exist with gay themes with little to no resistance from the far right or overt hype from the far left. If it's good, but happens to have a gay character, most of us won't care, if the gay part is the only thing that matters, then we'll probably just ignore it... and take the lame accusations from small minded people.

If you ask me the double standard is on everyone who tried to make anyone else feel guilty for not wanting to see this film. If homosexuality "doesn't matter" then when on earth are the activists going to start living as if it doesn't.

You make a valid point, Ted. I do agree that the guy has the right to do what he wants, and I sure was sick of hearing over and over how I have to see "Brokeback Mountain" or I'm intolerant, 'cuz I didn't see it, and I never plan to, just because I don't like that kind of movie. Period.

Off subject, but if that had been a movie about a heterosexual couple having an extramarital affair it would've just been the fifteenth dumb flick like that to come out that year.
None of us would've even BLINKED.

Off subject, but if that had been a movie about a heterosexual couple having an extramarital affair it would've just been the fifteenth dumb flick like that to come out that year. None of us would've even BLINKED.

Nor would have the movie world.  It would have been a third rate movie relegated to the B theaters and quickly to DVD.

Most of us didn't blink, anyway. Heck, to most of us it is a joke. I've heard 'brokeback' being tagged on people in the same way "homo" is. If it HAD been a heterosexual couple, the movie would have never been made. I have no doubt that we're in for 20 years of people going back and looking at old movie cliche's and saying "Okay, let's do that, but this time they're GAY!"

We'll probably see the gay casablanca, the gay african queen, the gay kramer vs. kramer, the gay blue lagoon, the gay romancing the stone. You name it, eventually they'll do it until it becomes too transparent to pull off anymore, then they'll have to go back to actually writing something that at least appears to be new.

This movie can't be compared to Will and Grace. No one has any heartfelt attachment to overgroomed sissies and their best girlfriends, so no one is really shocked when they flaunt what we pretty much guess to be true anyway. Westerns, on the other hand, are an American tradition. They are one of the few, true innovations America offers film.

There's no law that says they are sacrosanct, and people can do what they want with them. It isn't the first time there's been gay people in them, and no doubt our glamorized version of the West isn't close to accurate. That doesn't mean people aren't vehemently opposed to them being screwed with, though.

"Piss Christ" made a lot of people mad, but I bet you dimes to donuts that if you remade High Noon and made Gary Cooper gay there would be violent protest. We don't care when culturally-superior, metropolitan America soils itself with something like Will and Grace. What else is new, they are perpetually soiled. Wipe your mess on our icons, though, and expect a reaction.

To be fair, nobody on Will and Grace is cheating on their straight spouse, serially, and chronically, rather than facing up to the obligations of their marriage vows: either "going straight", or being honest with their spouses and getting a divorce.

My wife and I find W&G hilarious and remarkably inoffensive. What I personally find offensive about Brokeback Mountain was the implication that being gay is a valid excuse to also be a liar, a cheat, an adulterer, and a homewrecker. Why? Because being gay is apparently ZOMG SO HARD that it excuses all sorts of character flaws. Think about how the wife must feel, trapped in a marriage that isn't working, and that she can't fix because her husband knows the source of the problem but won't share it with her.

The movie portrays homosexual men as chumps and jerks, and implies that marital infidelity and general personal confusion are normal and acceptable in gay men. That's much more of an affront to my family values than the lighthearted tale of two gay men trying to make their way in the big city while having wacky adventures alongside their psychotic fag hags. See also: Dramas are meant to be taken seriously. Sitcoms? Not so much.

And seriously, Brokeback Mountain is offensive.

will and grace is a parody and thus enjoyable.

Brokedick mountain is an abomination.

Off subject, but if that had been a movie about a heterosexual couple having an extramarital affair it would've just been the fifteenth dumb flick like that to come out that year. None of us would've even BLINKED.

Actually, since they were both in heterosexual marriages, but only had this one gay "fling" once every so often, an "extramarital affair" is exactly what this movie was about.

We'll probably see the gay casablanca, the gay african queen, the gay kramer vs. kramer, the gay blue lagoon, the gay romancing the stone

a gay 'tootsie'? a gay 'aux cage'? so what you're suggesting is the best of the good life is in front of us now and the good times ain't really over for good?

so much for investing any credence in what merle has to say.

Actually, since they were both in heterosexual marriages, but only had this one gay "fling" once every so often, an "extramarital affair" is exactly what this movie was about.

True. But if they had been heterosexuals having a heterosexual "fling" every so often the world would've yawned and it would have been a super dud, not a "Best Picture" candidate.

This movie can't be compared to Will and Grace. No one has any heartfelt attachment to overgroomed sissies and their best girlfriends, so no one is really shocked when they flaunt what we pretty much guess to be true anyway. Westerns, on the other hand, are an American tradition. They are one of the few, true innovations America offers film.

This is a good point, and I'm not saying that the idea of the movie and the show should be compared, I'm just saying that standing for "traditional family values" doesn't really fly when we're talking Will and Grace, from both of the main characters. Neither one respects "traditional family values", both having flings (which we are supposed to find humorous) outside of marriage and shacking up with whoever comes along.
I don't give a hoot nor holler about the content, it's the fact that Mr. Miller stood up to support something that his TV station degrades on a daily basis.

PS I just don't find Will and Grace funny. That's just me - I think that the quality of the show as a whole went down the toilet years ago, and if NBC had a decent show that could pull any sense of decent ratings, that show would've been gone years ago.

I like to call myself a movie person, and a huge Jake Gyllenhaal fan (so hot!) but as I went to go see Brokeback, I became more and more uncomfortable. The performances were great and it was visually well put together, but their relationship was not believable. This is the basis for the entire film, and I didn't understand why they were one minute strangers and the next minute having sex. It wasn't so much that they were gay, it was why are they in love? I think if one of them had been a woman, I still wouldn't have understood their relationship. Their original meeting on the mountain was not believable enough to spur on their cheating and adultery later in life. It was a writing failure more so than the subject matter that I didn't like.

If you ask me the double standard is on everyone who tried to make anyone else feel guilty for not wanting to see this film.

I can't disagree with this. The idea that not wanting to see this movie automatically makes you some kind of bigot is rather silly, but perhaps no sillier than your judgement (without seeing the film?) that the film can have no merit just because it has a gay theme. But hey, none of us are professional critics here, so that's ok.

Westerns, on the other hand, are an American tradition... Wipe your mess on our icons, though, and expect a reaction.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that there were never any homosexual cowboys, or that maybe there were but you don't want a bunch of gays and liberals shitting on a movie tradition that you hold dear? Frankly I can't understand such extreme touchiness about cultural icons. And what kind of reaction are you predicting (hoping for?). Some manly upholder of the American Way to take a baseball bat to the face of the nearest fag? If so I expected better of you; if not you haven't really thought this through.

I can understand your feeling that your precious worldview is under attack; I even understand you feeling angry about it. Personally I would say a plague on both your houses - each trying to impose its values on the other because tolerance is too much like hard work.

But the mistake that you and para and moderate [sic] man make is to assume that the offence is equal, the balance of power is equal and the effects in the real world are equal. In reality one side in this 'struggle' faces ostracism, discrimination, violence, occasionally murder, and the other side? Well, the other side sometimes has its "feelings hurt". That people as intelligent as you cannot see this is surprising; the fact that you all claim some kind of spiritual view of life makes it truly shocking.

What I personally find offensive about Brokeback Mountain was the implication that being gay is a valid excuse to also be a liar, a cheat, an adulterer, and a homewrecker.

Well, maybe that was or maybe that wasn't the implication. It could just as easily be that 'being gay' in this particular social context is the explanation, not the excuse for the behaviour you point out, in which case the film becomes interesting and complex. I know that Americans expect the morality of any movie to be triple underlined, with the good guys in white hats and the bad guys in black, but it is possible to sympathetically explore without condoning. Try seeing a few more foreign movies, You'll soon get the idea.

Brokedick mountain is an abomination.

Ah yes, Elie, who would like to convince us elsewhere that America is a "kind, loving and spiritual" place letting us know exactly what that means for him. Don't you have any kindness in you at all?

"Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that there were never any homosexual cowboys, or that maybe there were but you don't want a bunch of gays and liberals shitting on a movie tradition that you hold dear?"

I think I made it pretty clear in the passage you evidently skimmed over to glean your quote:

"Westerns, on the other hand, are an American tradition. They are one of the few, true innovations America offers film. There's no law that says they are sacrosanct, and people can do what they want with them. It isn't the first time there's been gay people in them, and no doubt our glamorized version of the West isn't close to accurate. That doesn't mean people aren't vehemently opposed to them being screwed with, though. "

Some historians portray Richard the Lion-Hearted as a boy-buggering, Jew-hating fop. Tell ya what, let's make our next version of Robin Hood end with the entrance of such a character. Then we can brand anyone who differs with it a homophobe or a revisionist historian. Lets put nipples and a codpiece on Batman and Robin again, too. Oh, and don't forget, Samwise and Frodo are in the closet, too.

No, icons are rarely accurate, but icons they are. "The West" is a mythology no different in importance or depth than any other, and people will deal with you just as passionately about it. There's nothing culturally beloved about Will and Grace, thank God...

Do what you want with these icons, again, just as I said above and you ignored it. Smear them any way you like, that's your right. Don't for a second think that you won't get a violent reaction, though. Go read a bit about how the brain works conceptually. You'll find reactions to gay cowboys could go a LOT deeper than just some twinge of homophobia.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that there were never any homosexual cowboys, or that maybe there were but you don't want a bunch of gays and liberals shitting on a movie tradition that you hold dear? Frankly I can't understand such extreme touchiness about cultural icons. And what kind of reaction are you predicting (hoping for?). Some manly upholder of the American Way to take a baseball bat to the face of the nearest fag? If so I expected better of you; if not you haven't really thought this through.

Not back when there really were such things as "real" cowboys! Back then to openly admit you were gay would have meant you were shot dead! The old west attitude is why the touchiness over a cultural icon.

Smear them any way you like, that's your right.

This is daft. An endless number of westerns were made without (overtly) portraying the kind of 'deviancy' that so upsets you. Then they made one with a (slightly) novel twist. Suddenly a whole genre is being 'smeared'. Deep down you're too smart not to see just how silly and unfair that is.

You'll find reactions to gay cowboys could go a LOT deeper than just some twinge of homophobia.

Ah yes, back to the baseball bat again. 'And in defence, "I couldn't help it your honor. It's how my 'brain works conceptionally'. Those fuckin' faggots shat on my icons!"'

Some historians portray Richard the Lion-Hearted as a boy-buggering, Jew-hating fop. Tell ya what, let's make our next version of Robin Hood end with the entrance of such a character.

Why not? Those who don't want to see such a movie (that would probably include me) can spend their money elsewhere. But froth at the mouth because a movie like that has been made and is being watched by someone, somewhere? That I just don't get.

Reading what you have to say, I can see the important kernel of concern that you have: the contemporary fashion for inappropriate sexualisation of absolutely everything (it's not clear though whether you disapprove of inappropriate sexualisation or inappropriate homosexualisation - you very pointedly only attacked one) cheapens things that have other, deeper meanings, and our life should not consist only of the realm below the navel. You won't find me disagreeing with that.

But to get to that important kernel means wading through a mighty river of righteous anger, including semi-veiled threats of violence, and a shocking rhetoric that suggests you can't really see this issue in a balanced way.

Have you actually seen Brokeback Mountain? Are you really so sure that it has no other agenda than to sully a great American Myth? The people who made it believed that they were making a film about love (you know, the thing that "covers a multitude of sins") and whether or not you believe that, it has to be hard for you to be sure that that was not the motivation without having seen the movie. You see, in standing up for your own ideas of decency, the point gets lost if your way of defending cherished ideals is itself less than decent.

Those f****n' faggots shat on my icons

Come on, man. This is a family site. No need for language like that; I don't care how vehement you feel about the situation.

Remember: This isn't about the movie's content; I don't really care what the movie has in it, I really don't. I'm not going to see it just because I don't want to see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal making out. That, and extramarital affairs will make me uncomfortable no matter what the sexuality of the couple is. As one who does like to believe in "traditional family values", I really don't want to see it - not because they're gay, but because they're lying cheaters.

But I digress. It's about Mr. Miller's apparent double standard.

I like to call myself a movie person, and a huge Jake Gyllenhaal fan (so hot!) but as I went to go see Brokeback, I became more and more uncomfortable. The performances were great and it was visually well put together, but their relationship was not believable. This is the basis for the entire film, and I didn't understand why they were one minute strangers and the next minute having sex. It wasn't so much that they were gay, it was why are they in love? I think if one of them had been a woman, I still wouldn't have understood their relationship. Their original meeting on the mountain was not believable enough to spur on their cheating and adultery later in life. It was a writing failure more so than the subject matter that I didn't like.

Thanks for writing this, Amanda. Most of the people who have posted haven't seen the movie. I read the short story years ago for a class I was taking on the American Western novel, and I remember not liking it that much, but enjoying Annie Proulx's writing style. But everyone I've talked to said that it was a poorly written movie. Sure, it was pretty. Sure, the acting was great, but the writing is incredibly crucial.

But - back on subject . . .