The film, Brokeback Mountain has expanded to a wider market and has been doing very good boxoffice outside of the traditional (Gay) SF, LA and NY markets.
In one respect, you could say the film is preaching to the choir and the only people going to see the film are those who are not already rabidly homophobic.
And of course, the subject material has been great fodder for late night comedian talk show hosts.
On the other hand, the film has been well-received, both critically and by the viewing public and is getting a wider (non-Gay) audience who might better understand the concept of a Gay relationship.
And if nothing else, the film has certainly been the source of many articles and I am sure, many conversations among friends and co-workers about the topic.
I don’t pretend to think the popularity of the film will suddenly have Mormons rushing to the polls to vote for Gay marriage rights, but could the popularity of this film have any meaningful long or short-term effect on how the general public views male homosexuality?
Before people answer your question… how is the film being received by the gay “community” ?
Overall I know there is a lot of people laughing at the concept of a gay cowboy movie. I haven’t seen it… but I read a lot about the film. It sure sounds interesting and romantic… I try to be respectful of the film but I can’t avoid laughing at the jokes I keep hearing about the film.
My wild guess is that those that do watch the movie might feel a bit more sympathetic to gays. Everyone has had a love that never got a chance… and obviosly except for the most macho homophobics… most will probably have a little insight on what gay life and love must be. Better to talk about it than not is my view. The more “space” gays get… the more used to them people will become.
This “gay cowboy” bit is a little misleading isn’t it. I have just read the story and while the gay guys do have sex they are both at one time married with children and insist they aren’t gay. And the cowboys are shepherds.
Did the HUGE success of “Passion of the Christ” lead millions of non-believers to become Christian? Of course not. Its enormous success was due to its popularity among people who were already devout Christians.
Same with “Brokeback Mountain.” Its MODEST success (it’s doing very, very well for a relatively small, indie film, but it’s no blockbuster) is due to its popularity among people who are gay or gay-friendly. Homophobes have no interest in seeing this film. So, even IF a movie, ANY movie, had the power to change people’s minds over important issues (I’m skeptical about this, to say the least), “Brokeback Mountain” can’t change the minds of people who will never see it in the first place.
I’m not a homophobe but I still don’t want to see this movie. On the other hand I don’t generally want to see a romance movie between heterosexuals either. I doubt it’s going to change any minds but how successful would a movie like this have been 20-30 years ago? Not nearly as much I’m thinking.
IMHO, any sympathy or tolerance generated by this movie, or any book, movie, song, magazine article, etc. will be easily counter-balanced by the discomfort to rabid hatred it inspires in people who are homophobic. For every person who sees it and thinks ‘hey, gay people are human beings who just want to find love and be happy’, there will be at least one person who just hears of the movie and thinks that the homosexual agenda is out to recruit their children and it’s really about time somebody put a stop to it.
I doubt it’ll have any effect on existing homophobia. It may have an effect on future attitudes to the point where a gay romance warrants a shrug from a mainstream audience.
It’s more than a modest success. It’s projected to make more than $100 million domestically and it cost about $14 million to make. That’s not counting internatonal numbers or eventual DVD sales which will probably be much larger than usual, especially if (as is widely expected) the film wins the the Oscar for Best Picture.
Any film which makes ten times its budget and scores a boatload of Oscar noms (including a probable win for Best Picture) has to be called much more than a “modest success.” It’s per screen average was blowing away movies like King Kong and Narnia for weeks before it got a wider opening.
I also think it’s misleading to call it a “small indie film” Brokeback may not technically be a major studio film, but it features an A-list cast, director and screenwriter and its marketing campaign has been as big as any film this year. It’s a big movie, it’s not just a niche film or a gay audience film. When I saw it, the theater was nearly sold out (for a friday matinee) and the crowd was mostly women (and a more than a few senior citizens, oddly enough). When I saw how many women were attending in pairs and groups, I realized that what Brokeback really is is a chick flick. I think it’s true that homophobic males aren’t going to see it or have their minds changed but I do think the film has the potential to reach a lot of women who might not otherwise be interested in a “gay film,” largely because it’s the kind of movie that women will watch in groups or (eventually) at DVD parties. It might just be able to push a few empathy buttons in some people despite themselves.
I also think that a lot of men who are embarrassed to see the movie in a theater will probably check it out on cable or DVD just out of curiosity and may well be surprised by it.
Do I think the movie has the potential to make a real difference? By itself, probably not, but I do think it can open the door for more same-sex love stories in mainstream films, and so, in that sense, it’s a heavy straw on the camel’s back of cultural homophobia in the US.
Most Americans are already Christians. TPOTC didn’t change the culture because the culture is ALREADY Christian. Gibson’s film was telling an overwhelming majority what they already believed, it wasn’t trying to change a cultural view, it was reinforcing one. I don’t think it can be compared to Brokeback.
Unfortunately, it may even serve to widen the gap between “gay friendlies” and “homophobes.” It sort of gives a platform from which macho attitudes may spring…“I sure ain’t gonna see that movie.” I was going to suggest it as this past weekend’s movie that I’d see with two other guys, but I didn’t want to get into that kind of discussion with those two. Instead, we saw Underworld: Evolution. Besides, like so many movies lately, it’s on my “rent the DVD” list. Part of my reasoning is that I’ve heard stories of homophobic commentary taking place in the theaters. I’d rather watch it and enjoy it in peace.
That all being said, I still think it’s great to finally see a gay love story become more mainstream, even if it does make the rabid homophobes gnash their teeth. I’m anxiously waiting for the film Transamerica (the story of a male to female transsexual discovering that she fathered a child before the operation) to hit DVD since I recently found out it existed. I think I’ll be watching both movies alone.
I think that’s the only way this movie will have much of an effect: as a catalyst. (Don’t get me wrong; I’m not belittling the impact of a catalyst on our culture.) I have no numbers, but I would bet pounds to pesos that the percentage of heterosexuals seeing this movie is smaller than it is in the American population. What I think is way more important is that everybody is talking about that movie about gay cowboys. The notion of a homosexual relationship in a movie is just a little bit less shocking. I honestly don’t imagine that, even in years to come, the audience for another gay romance movie will be a simple random mix of the American population.
What I do believe is that we will see more movies where gay romances are included with hetero romances. (e.g. I could easily imagine seeing a “coming-of-age” movie that includes both hetero and gay couples.)
Or, ummm, yeah, what he said:
Here’s my question: is it “correct” to see this movie as being political in nature? Some conservatives dismiss this movie as promoting the “lefty cause du jour,” as one blogger put it, which seems to equate this movie to something like Bowling for Columbine. The OP sort of does it too, and I’m not sure that it’s true.
Should we be even ascribing political motivations to this film, if my question makes sense?
Yes, but would you ahve suggested, say, the upcoming Ready to Launch (w/ Matthew McCoughnahey and SJP)? I think you’d probably have been just as ridiculued, even though it’s a heterosexual romantic comedy.
As for the OP, I think where the film will have the most effect is on people who aren’t overtly homophobic, but are not motivated to particularly care one way or the other about gay rights. It’s not going to make any genuine homophobes change their outlook, but it might encourage people around them to speak up when they go off on teh gays.
I think that more than what it WILL DO for homophobia is what it shows about the prevalance of homophobia NOW. The idea that two up and coming It boys can star in a gay cowboy movie, and have it be a success rather than completely ruin their careers is pretty telling about this subject. What it says it that people aren’t terrified of homosexuality anymore, and I’ve heard people talk about how this movie opened their minds to the concept a little bit. I think that homophobia is becoming less and less of an issue as it becomes increasingly mainstream, and this is part of that trend.
Are there some individuals who overestimate the influence the entertainment industry has on society? Take a look at ‘Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner’. In and of itself, it probably didn’t have much of a ‘carry over effect’ on the way Americans viewed race. It was simply one piece of the late 1960s Zeitgeist.
Can Brokeback Mountain; a film in which the two main characters could be defined as homophobic themselves (in that they feared their own sexuality); erase the stigma associated with homosexuality?
or
Could the uneasiness the characters have with their own ‘gayness’ reinforce the views of those who say, ‘Fine, you’re gay…and can’t even come to terms with it yourself. Just do me a favor and keep it up in the mountains where I don’t have to see it.’?