But not the freedom to permit the distributor to rely upon your outlet as part of his promotion, and then at the last minute, when he cannot book an alternate venue, break your contract–at least not without responding in damages.
I think we are really well past trying to hold the screaming mimis to any sort of behavioral standard, let alone “responsible”.
Fuck’em. They have a right to organize boycotts, so do we. Let the dice roll.
The real question to me is, why did they book the film in the first place and then change their mind?
If the theatre had to put up signs, saying that they weren’t showing the movie, that says, to me, that they had booked the film and probably had placed their newspaper ads. Otherwise, why would customers need a sign saying, “Sorry but we are not showing it”.
It sounds to me like the owner of the theatre got some heat from somebusybody and changed his mind.
I’ve worked in theatres for a long time. When Last Temptation of Christ was going to be released, we received many threatening phone calls at the theatre, even though there was no chance of us playing it because they weren’t going to release the film in our area. People seriously threatened to kill 15 year-old girls who had no part of the decision making process but just sold tickets and answered the phone.
If I owned a theatre in such an area, I would think twice about safety issues, not the ‘gay’ issue. There were many theatre that didn’t show Get Rich or Die Tryin’ for that very issue.
(nitpick)
They never herd cattle, they herd sheep, so technically it’s a gay shepherd movie.
(/nitpick)
There is a reason why it’s getting so much critical acclaim and awards attention, and it doesn’t have all that much to do with it having a controversial subject matter. It’s actually a very good movie too. I’d say skip it if you don’t like slow, deliberate, character-driven dramas, but don’t let the perception that it’s just about “gay cowboys” keep you away, because it’s about far more than just that.
I like Leonard Pitts’s take on the whole thing (from the Salt Lake Tribune):
I’m not sure if he understood that the Larry David piece was satire, making fun of straight men who were afraid to see it, but no matter. I still like what he says. I can attest that seeing BBM will not turn a straight man gay (based on exact scientific tests done with my husband) and, also based on scientific sampling (asking my husband) the sex/kissy scenes (which make up less than 2 minutes of the 2 hr 14 min film) are not unbearable.
Cite?
This one theater is the only place that can show it in all of Utah? Are you joking?
Or am I being whooshed?
If a gay theater owner refused to show a movie where a gay person got “cured” and got married and had 2.2 kids, would people be upset?
What if an evangelical theater owner refused to show a movie where the main character finds happiness by rejecting God? What if an atheist theater owner refused to show “The Ten Commandments,” or “Jesus of Nazareth?”
Let the market decide.
A quick check of Moviephone has three places showing it.
The film is still in a limited release and is slowly expanding to new locations.
It’s playing at Broadway Center Theater in Salt Lake, Century 16 Salt Lake in Salt Lake, Cinemark 24 Jordan Landing in Jordan Landing, Redstone 8 Cinema in Park City, or at least Yahoo tells me.
I don’t question the owner’s right to choose not to show the movie. However, I think it’s beyond hypocritical. I’m sure that the theater regularly shows movies with murder and torture and terrorism and they don’t even bat an eye.
Utah is an awful state. The theater owner may well have feared for his life or for the safety of his employees. It wouldn’t surprise me in a state where people will road-rage out on you just for having a Kerry/Edwards sticker on your bumper. Why is one of the most beautiful states in the union full of such ugly people?
Is this hyperbole, or factual?
Uh…they have done exactly that time and again.
For a Utah-related example, see this link.
Other historical examples abound: doctrinal revisions, Papal bulls, changed understandings, and even the inclusion and exclusion of some “books” from the Bible as Apocrypha.
Sailboat
No, that is his duty and a judge takes an oath to do exactly that.
A movie owner isn’t legally or even morally bound to act against his own conscience in any matter in which the law doesn’t regulate his behavior (for example even if he feels it is “just” to show child porn he still shouldn’t do it because that would violate the law.)
He has no responsibility to serve the community. Privately owned movie theaters are not there to serve to community, they are there as paid entertainment. The owner or owners can operate it in whatever manner they see fit as long as it is in accordance with the law. There is no moral responsibility that a movie theater owner has to either serve the community, to show movies he doesn’t like, or even to run his business with sound management.
He doesn’t have to justify his position in the movie business. He has bought a movie house, he owns it, he can run it how he sees fit as long as it’s in accordance with the law. If he wants to only show one film a year, that’s his prerogative. And no, he is not practicing censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
Any definition of “censorship” that would apply in this situation would not be one that carries a negative connotation.
Why? Where is it said that a movie theater owner has to behave in the manner in which you are saying? And under what rationale would it be immoral for him to do otherwise?
If it just comes down to you plain don’t like what he’s doing, well that’s fine, that’s your opinion and valid for yourself; but wholly meaningless in the context of this incident.
The right to a freedom of speech simply means that we have the right to restrain government from acting against it. It does not mean that to not fully utilize our freedom of speech is in itself a violation of freedom of speech at large.
For example if I’m a columnist and I dislike Brokeback Mountain; I don’t have an obligation to write about it. I could just choose not to comment on it at all. Me not voicing my stance on the matter doesn’t represent a violation of anyone’s freedom of speech.
We also, in general, can all reserve the right to be as willfully ignorant as we want in the United States as long as we don’t violate the law in the process.
Obviously. Most people who post on this forum in fact do exclusively that, and I am suspicious as to whether they are intellectually productive in any capacity.
Anyways, personally before I start throwing invectives around I like to have the full picture. And right now I have no idea what motivated the theatre owner so I’ll withhold from having any particular opinion on his motivations. And since I don’t know anything about the man I certainly would refrain from calling him names.
I can’t answer for Frostillicus but in general I’d probably be less interested in a movie like that. A gay relationship is something that is, I think most will agree, more politically controversial and relevant to current events so that would make Brokeback Mountain more interesting to me than a movie involving an interracial couple, since interracial relationships have gained a great degree of acceptance in this country.
Either way I don’t usually have much interests for movies that are generally romantic in nature, gay or otherwise.
I want a cite on the bumper sticker thing. I had no less than 5 anti-Bush/pro-democrat stickers on the back of my truck last election and nobody messed with me.
Thanks, furt for clarifying the censorship thing.
It sounds like Larry is making a bad business decision. Since Larry H. Miller is one of the richest men in Utah, owns the Utah Jazz NBA team and a zillion new car dealerships, I really really really doubt that he feels the least bit of fear for his life from violent homophobes. Since he talked to the local NPR station this morning and said it was a business decision, he appears to be courting the ultra-conservative voting block. Maybe Larry is contemplating a run for office soon. Although not a native, he did join the mormon church recently. Like I mentioned and Captain Amazing detailed, if you want to see the film, all you have to do is drive a few miles up the street to another theater. Social activism with your wallet.
Why is there a posting full of prejudice in a thread lambasting prejudice?
It’s only prejudice when directed against people you like ;).
At any rate, it seems to me the theater owner made what he believes to be a good business decision for the community in which his theater is located. Now, his belief may be wrong. What matters to him, apparently, is that there was a community outcry against that particular film so he didn’t show it. Perhaps he didn’t want to face a total boycott of is theater by the people in that community?
I think the topic of censorship, and the question of whether it applies to this situation, is a bit less cut-and-dried than some of you are thinking.
There’s an idea that frequently comes up in discussions of this sort, which is the concept of someone “owning a printing press”. That is, if the government didn’t censor an idea, but if everyone who owned a printing press did, (where “owning a printing press” basically means controlling some means of distributing ideas), then the idea would be 100% censored.
What if the guy who owned Yahoo actually WAS one of those mythical foaming-at-the-mouth-anti-Christian-atheists, and decided that since, hey, he owned Yahoo, then he had the right to control what content was distributed via Yahoo, so he’d set up some filters so that no Christian content could ever pass through Yahoo. Would that be OK?
Now, obvoiusly, a movie theater isn’t the same as Yahoo. But it’s also not 100% NOT the same as Yahoo either, as it is a means by which ideas are conveyed to the public.
So while I’m not going to get outraged by a decision made by the owner of a single theater, I’m also not totally copacetic about the whole situation… what if, instead of a single theater, it was a single CHAIN of theaters? What if that chain had an effective monopoly over a region of the country? And so forth…