I agree. Slowly but surely, the kind of guys who were more appalled by the homosexuality than the murder in The Talented Mr. Ripley are going to see this movie (often dragged by their girlfriends, but still).
What I loved about the movie is that it’s not driven by sex scenes but by the powerful emotional bond between the two men. Only a mouth breather could watch the movie and thing that all Brokeback and their subsequent meetings were about was buttsex- it’s the feelings and the tenderness that makes the movie heartbreaking. The scene when Jack is asleep standing up and Ennis cradles himis a thousand times sexier and more powerful than any gay bedroom scene could ever be.
If the movie can make just a few people understand that gay relationships are just as likely to be based on emotional bonding far more than physical desire as straight relationships then its worth not having had more nekkid Gyllenhaal. But if it doesn’t make them realize this, then I want my nekkid Gyllenhaal back in the movie!
I remember almost 30 years ago hearing one of my teenage friends recommend the Rocky Horror Picture Show as a way to let go of uptightness around sexual identity and gender. This was a brand new concept in suburban Ohio in those days, you have to remember. The '70s were the first time teh gay began to come out in the open in the media. The midnite Rocky Horror craze swept the nation, and for years teenagers in American backwaters found communal fulfillment watching some screamingly queer entertainment, including (implied) gay sex.
So, as with the OP, is there any way to estimate how much the massive Rocky Horror craze might have contributed to lightening up America’s attitudes toward queers today? Those kids are now in their 40s and writing checks to political candidates… Or is it too farfetched to draw a connection between such frivolous movies, however widespread and successful, and changes in social attitudes? At least Brokeback Mountain is a serious movie and we can keep a straight face while talking about it. 
Very little. I would imagine if mild homophobes saw this movie either reluctantly or not knowing what it was, it may make them more sympathetic. It’s hard not to be sympathetic towards (I assume) well-written, well-acted characters.
But if a homophobe knows it’s a gay love movie, why would they even bother going to see it? What’s the motiviation? It’s not exactly high on my “must-see” list.
Have you seen the movie? The message I got from the movie was basically that love is a very strong force, and that it has nothing to do with sex/gender, and it can overcome societal boundaries (like traditional views of marriage and sex). I don’t think I said that well, which is probably why I’m not a movie critic.
Anyway, is that message a “leftist” viewpoint? Sure, I guess so. I mean, if it weren’t for the ongoing national debate, this movie might seem somewhat out-of-the-blue, I think. But, twenty or thirty years from now, is this movie going to be seen as purely “liberal propaganda” rather than a great work of art with a romantic message? I highly doubt it.
It makes a statement, but I don’t think it’s overly preachy in making that statement, so I wouldn’t say, “Oh, it’s just a political movie,” if that makes any sense.
BTW, why is every instance of the word “gay” capitalized in the OP? It’s kind of Awkward.
To the extent that there is a gay community, mostly favorable. I’ve known a couple of gay men who didn’t like it at all (they thought it was too bleak and depressing and “two men can’t have a happy life together” [which, rural Wyoming 1960s- I’m a guessin’ that’s pretty accurate]) but most I’ve known were moved by it.
I think the more a subject becomes familiar, the more accepted it becomes. People fear the unknown.
A better way to do this would be a movie which wasn’t obviously about gays, but had some sympathetic characters. People would go and see it, and, if it was good, could become more aware of gays as just other humans.
I would say the main effect is likely to be on the movie business itself. After all, Hollywood pays more attention to movies than the rest of us.
In particular, it overturns certain ideas that Hollywood previously considered ‘accepted wisdom’:
- a gay romance in a movie would destroy ticket sales, outside of a few big costal cities.
- appearing in a ‘gay’ role will kill the career of any A-list heartthrob actor.
- movies with major gay plot elements don’t get Oscar nominations; actors & actresses in them don’t get Oscar nominations; and they certainly don’t win awards.
and the big one (for Hollywood):
- movies with a gay theme don’t make money.
I think this will have a significant effect on the future of the movie business:
Major actors & actresses will be more willing to appear in ‘gay’ roles; producers will be more willing to consider stories with gay elements in them, and movie companies will be more willing to fund such movies. And that will have an effect on Hollywood long term, and what is produced in future years.
[Given the copycat mentality there, I can’t imagine how many hopeful producers are running around right now with scripts for ‘the gay lumberjack’ movie, ‘the gay soldier’ movie, ‘the gay athelete’ movie, etc.
The biggest winners could be authors like Patricia Nell Warren, who might finally see her novel “The Front Runner” actually produced as a movie!]
I don’t know if the picture will have much effect on anything.
A few weeks ago Larry King had two spokepeople - one male, the other female, I did not catch their names - for Christian conservative groups of some sort, who were lambasting the movie. As I am sure I need not mention, neither had SEEN the film, but were saying it promoted the wrong lifestyle yadda yadda yadda.
I tell you, though - I realize this isn’t a basis for judging someone, but when those two people said they didn’t hate the sinner, just the sin, they were lying. They HATED homosexuals; you could see a murderous hatred in their eyes. Especially the woman; she had exactly the same sort of wicked gleam in her eye I would expect the witch-burners had in Germany in the 15th century as they tied terrified, shrieking eight-year-olds to the stake. She was evil, through and through, a heart as black and cold as wet coal. There is no doubt in my mind; they were there, saying what they said, because they hated gays, and nothing more, and if the structure of civilization didn’t hold them back, they’d both be murderers.
It was scary and depressing, to say the least.
My point exactly…Larry King had two spokespeople talking about the film…I missed it and, granted, what you describe isn’t all that wonderful, but Brokeback seems to have been the reason for even having the show…so as the old adage goes, “no press is bad press” when it comes to bringing up Gay issues. So the film is at least bringing up the issue, interesting people in the film, and perhaps reaching those who might otherwise have never been reached?
P.S. to TJdude825, I always capitalize the word Gay and Lesbian, just as I would capitalize American, German, French and British…maybe not grammatically correct, but I consider myself a part of a Gay nationality.
JohnBckWLD writes:
> Are there some individuals who overestimate the influence the entertainment
> industry has on society?
I think in general we overestimate the influence of the entertainment industry, the news business, and academia on society. Conservatives are always complaining that these three groups are wildly liberal and are a heavy influence on society. Then why isn’t our society as liberal? These groups are not nearly as influential as conservatives claim.
Well it worked didn’t it? We’re not overrun by witches. 
Sorry, sorry. Couldn’t resist.
We had to fight them then so we don’t have to fight them now.
I think it might be counterproductive in the gay rights movement, if the film is seem as overly political in nature and the people see it as Hollywood trying to change people’s opinion.
I don’t see how that’s avoidable. People opposed to this sort of thing will see it as being “Hollywood trying to change people’s opinion” no matter what is actually in the film.
As I mentioned, the two guests on Larry King’s show both accused the movie of this, and they’d not even seen it.
I think it’s obvious that some forms of entertainment can and do influence behavior. To use a minor example, sales of St. Bernards went through the roof after the Beethoven movie came out.
In that sense, I think the rightwingers are right to fear this, and similar, movies. I think the word “homophobia” is generally pretty apt, as it stems from a fear of the unknown and the “unusual.” The more exposure average people have to LGBT issues, the more accepting they will be of them and the more shrill the wingnuts will be. That shrillness will make it seem like backlash.
Why would that be counterproductive?
No, there are a lot more witches nowadays. You can’t keep people down.
Huh? The movie shows exactly the opposite, it is a story of forbidden love, hidden away. Societal expectations are what keep them from being able to be together except on “fishing” trips.
I don’t see how this is avoidable either. Its not like one can have a stealth civil rights movement… one that suddenly comes to results. Gays in the media are a way of pushing the issue… especially if done in a film that is in good taste and a good story.
The reactionaries will go ape shit anyway… but maybe a few will learn to sympathisize with gays.