« Read The Comments | Main | Let's Hope This Isn't A Trend »
January 8, 2006
"Brokeback" Pushback
Yesterday it was front page news here, and today it's on Drudge, that a local theater dropped the movie Brokeback Mountain just hours before it's debut at one of the larger theaters. The movie has already been showing for a couple of weeks at a smaller venue here in the valley, with little, if any disagreement from the locals. Now that a monster-plex has dropped it, especially when it's one owned by none other than Mr. LDS himself, Larry Miller, it's big news.
The local media is focusing on this passage:
In an interview with KCPW-FM reporter Jonathan Brown, which was taped Thursday afternoon and aired Friday, Miller said booking a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" was a business decision.
"It's something that I have to let the market speak to some degree," Miller told Brown. "I don't think I'm qualified to be the community censor."
However, Brown said Friday that Miller was unaware of the storyline of "Brokeback Mountain" - about two Wyoming cowboys who maintain a hidden romance for two decades - until Brown described it to him Thursday, less than two hours before the schedule change was announced.
as evidence that once Mr. Miller was enlightened by the reporter's description of the plot of the movie, he decided to shelf it. I don't buy it primarily for this reason: there has been enough publicity about this movie that only a fool, especially a fool who owns a mega-plex theater, would not know what the movie was about until the day before his theater was to show it. Larry Miller may be many things, but a fool is not one of them. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, what Mr. Miller's reasons for dropping the movie were, but that doesn't stop comments such as this:
Adams, who moved to Sandy from Washington state more than a year ago, said "this is the first time I've been slapped in the face with what I believe to be closemindedness. . . . This movie has gotten stellar reviews, and it's already up for boatloads of awards. Not showing this film says bigotry and fear."
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that remark. The only thing not showing this movie shows is that a private theater owner can show whatever movies he likes for reasons known only to him and if it violates his licensing agreement with a distributer, then he has lawyers to fight that out for him. That's it.
When I was in the Army, I got taught a huge lesson on the difference between "rights" and "privileges." In the Army, we acrue leave, or vacation time, as part of our enlistment contract. Acruing leave would be considered a "right" as it's part of your contract. Actually taking the leave, however, is a "privilege" as you must be in good standing in order to take it, meaning you can't be in trouble and must get the permission of Top and your CO to take it. In the case of the disappointed movie goer, I think she believes that she has the right to see this movie with the implied obligation of the theater to show it to her. I'm afraid it's more complicated than that. There is a "right" which belongs to the theater owner to show whichever movies he/she chooses, and there is also a "right" for the movie goes to not choose to frequent this theater. The article clearly states that the movie has been showing for some time in other theaters in the valley.
A couple of things here: Do I think there was piss-poor planning on the part of the theater for cutting it so close, within hours, of the movies initial debut? Absolutely. Do I think that the theater should refund those tickets immediately and present each effected patron with an additional voucher for a future movie? Absolutely. Do I think there are additional variables involved in the decision that I don't know about? You betcha. Do I think that the aforementioned "bigotry and hate" diatribe is responsible for the decision? There is no way to tell and that remark certainly shows the agenda from which that commentor is operating from.
There has been many an ongoing debate in the MangledCat household regarding this movie. The Mrs, who BTW, has started a blog, wants to see the movie, mainly to see if it lives up to all the hype that has been generated around it. I have no desire to see it, partly because of all the hype that has been generated around it, and partly because I simply do not have any desire what-so-ever to see it. The frequent follow up is "Why Not?" to which I don't have a specific answer. Pro Gay advocates would point to that as buried bigotry, which I assure you has nothing to do with it. Not wanting to witness something does not in and of itself point to intolerance. I have no desire to view a chicken laying an egg. Does that make me a bigot towards farm animals? I have no desire to watch a car being built. Am I bigoted towards the auto industry? But the same level of understanding doesn't exist in the political debate that evolves around the gay community. If a person isn't comfortable with, say, watching one of the gay rights parades, where flamboyance is the norm, then they are bigots. The global misunderstanding within the gay community seems to be that if people are uncomfortable, desensitize them with more of what they are uncomfortable with. Get more over the top. Find more ways to thrust it in their face, and I don't think that's the answer to Joe and Jane Americana. It would seem to me that showing them that you are just like everybody else, that you have the same stresses, the same issues, the same struggles with day to day decisions is the way to break down that wall.
Maybe this movie is a good start down that road. I don't know. What I do know is that my wife will ultimately win this battle to get me to see it, because she is right. My wife's arguments, we discovered today, have been mirrored by this opinion piece by Leonard Pitts, posted today at the Trib. I'll let you know what I thought after I see it.
Posted by Jonathan at January 8, 2006 11:02 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mangledcat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/112
Comments
I saw it, at the spouse's insistence. Its a movie, that's all. I did not find the story to be compelling or the characters all that interesting. I thought the build-up to their consumation and initial ardor was completely contrived.
The characters are sad, pathetic and sticking to a relationship that stopped working years ago for some ill-defined memory of what they must have thought was love. There's lots of emotion in the movie, it just didn't make me feel it.
Posted by: Nate at January 10, 2006 11:17 PM