Actually, no there isn’t. The theater owner had no comment; you and Gayle Ruzicka are the ones assuming.
EddyTeddyFreddy, I can’t figure out how to quote you :smack: but you are right about Utah. However, even though I lived there for awhile and think it should become it’s own weird little country, I’m won’t deny the fact that the theater owner is in the business to make money. And with that movie, he most likely would not. I’d rather not have it shown if homophobic morons are gonna sit in the back and shout out slurs. People are just different in Utah. And Idaho. Etc.
(the coolest person I “know” from Utah is Diane!)
Given the context, I think that is a valid assumption.
I’m not suprised by this nor do I dispute the theater owners right to pull the film. However, I think there is a more interesting thing here that no one seems to have noticed. Why did they pull the film? In reading the article it is clear that this happened at the last minute. The theater had planned to show the film. Movie theaters book things weeks and month in advance. They also likely knew what the subject matter was when they booked it.
From the article:
The bolding is mine. Does this mean they had to sign an agreement to show the film in the first place? That hardly sounds like something a homophobe would agree to show and then change their mind later. They would probably never agree to show it to begin with, right? It sounds like outside pressure was put on the theater owners to pull the movie. So, maybe the theater owner wanted to show the film and was pressured or threatened with a boycott of his business. In this case, it looks like you should be pitting someone other than the theater owner Cynical Gabe. Who, however, is the question.
That’s what I figured, in fact I almost added a caveat about not calling every Utahite a homophobe, only that they’re, well, different there. I live in Massachusetts, which currently has a (part-time while he runs for President) governor who’s a Mormon from Utah, so I’ve had some exposure to his ilk.
Oh, and I just sent you an email about doing quotes.
Why? I tend to think just the opposite: that if he was morally opposed to the movie’s content, he wouldn’t have booked it in the first place. The fact that it was pulled at the last minute suggests to me that it was in response to the community. Moreover, if he was making a principled moral stand, he might have said something to that effect. “No comment” smells more like a dispassionate business choice.
In any event, neither one of us has anything other than our assumptions and prejudices.
Someone more familiar with the theater business can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe movie houses are required to take a bundle of films from distributors on most or all licensing contracts. They can’t just take a* Lord of the Rings* and refuse to take an Ishtar, for example.
Now, we don’t know whether Brokeback Mountain was bundled. Maybe it was, and the theater owner had to take it to get one or more movies s/he expected to be profitable, even though s/he didn’t want to do so, whether out of homophobia or from knowing the tastes of his/her audience.
If that’s the case, and the theater owner on top of that reluctance got community pressure (something I consider likely), that could have been the last straw persuading the theater owner to pull the film.
Side question, since we don’t know what he thinks: does the owner actually do the booking? Is there a manager of some kind that handles day-to-day things like that?
Oh, bullshit! That’s not even close to what I said and you know it.
Is it “hypocritical” for a judge to enforce a ruling that he does not agree with, simply because it is in accordance with the law?
I’m not saying there’s a law that should force this theater owner to show it. I’m saying that indulging our own personal views is not always the best way to serve the community. Needless to say, choosing not to serve the community, while not illegal, is also not the best way to serve the community.
If the owner doesn’t want people to see certain movies, what the bloody hell is he doing in the showing-movies-to-people business? If the purpose of a movie house is to show movies, and you buy a movie house in order to, essentially, keep the screen dark rather than show certain movies, you are–this is the way the math comes out–effectively practicing censorship. Legally, of course. But the fact that you are using your power over that screen to keep it dark in accordance with your own personal views is, morally, censorship.
The guy shoulda bought a drycleaners instead of a movie house if he didn’t want to be responsible for showing certain movies.
And to answer START’s first post, try this on for size (insertions mine):
Pretty enlightened, no?
I’m pretty upset that we don’t come right out and call this kind of censorship un-American more often.
It’s un-American to restrict freedom of speech. No one has to go see Brokeback Mountain, but preventing people from seeing it is a violation of the principles this country was founded on, and I feel it would be wholly appropriate to print up a comic-book mini-series showing Captain America viciously beating the theater owner and whoever pressured him to drop the film.
Okay, I don’t really mean that, but why don’t we do this more? It’s okay to disapprove of homosexuality, but it’s not morally acceptable to prevent people from learning about homosexuality, or to pretend that homosexuals don’t exist, or to discriminate against them. We should be more direct in our dealings with people who try and tell us that immorality is morality. Jesus wouldn’t have tolerated that: I see no reason for anyone to tolerate it from those who do it and claim they do it in His name.
Incorrect. It is un-American for Government to restrict freedom of speech. It is not un-American for a private citizen to restrict speech in his own private place of business. He is not preventing people from seeing anything. Any other theater can show it. When it comes out on DVD can I demand to plant my ass on your couch and watch it in your home?
Actually, he is showing another movie instead. In any event, a private business owner can censor whatever the fuck they want.
This is no more censorship than you choosing to write in this thread instead of, say, the one about God’s musical chairs.
That’s my thought.
If the mythical town of Sevenville only had one theatre, and they played a movie about gay cowboys, the theatre would be empty.
Not that I have anything against gay people or cowboys, I just don’t have an interest in watching a movie about gay cowboys.
So this guy has a choice of showing a movie in the town no one wants to see or running a shoot-um-up movie that averages a 50-80% turnout during the run. I see nothing wrong with not showing a gay cowboy movie.
Did the Lone Ranger and Tonto have late night snacks together?
What?
Yes; it would be so much more American to** force ** the theater owner to show a movie he doesn’t want to.
Freedom of speech also entails the freedom to not speak if one doesn’t want to.
Okay, my last post wasn’t well thought-out or organized.
I wish I knew whether the theater owner didn’t show the movie because he felt it would be unprofitable, or because someone was afraid someone might see the movie and become slightly more comfortable with homosexuality. Then I’d know who the shithead is.
Being a local and somewhat familiar with the group, I think Gayle Ruzicka’s Eagle Forum exercised their freedom of speech to either encourage or pressure the theater manager into refusing to show the film.
And if you think this is about “values”, I personally know that this particular showed The Devil’s Rejects, a fine family film about upstanding, traditional American family values like kidnapping, torture, murder and revenge.
Isn’t wonderful that it’s OK to watch 2 men kill each other, but not kiss each other? It’s called hypocrisy, and The Eagle Forum do it well.
[QUOTE=BMax]
And if you think this is about “values”, I personally know that this particular showed The Devil’s Rejects,
[QUOTE]
That should read this particular cinema showed The Devil’s Rejects
Okay, my last post wasn’t well thought-out or organized.
I wish I knew whether the theater owner didn’t show the movie because he felt it would be unprofitable, or because he or someone else was afraid someone might see the movie and become slightly more comfortable with homosexuality. Then I’d know whether a pitting is really deserved here.
Which has what to do with what? Ruczika can say what she likes, you can say what you like, and the theater owner can decide who he wants to listen to. Freedom of speech all 'round.
I somehow suspect anbody on here would be screaming “censorship” if the local cineplex was declining to book a relgious movie.