Reactions to Brokeback by friends, family & audiences

[CellarDweller115]

I noticed a few things this time I missed before. The line "We are working together so we might as well start drinking together" was not in there. I thought it was. And no one had ever mentioned that shot of Jack in the trailer standing shirtless on a bridge. Where the hell has that gone? And where would it be in the film?

Hiya Sparky!

I thought I was the only one who noticed this!

I posted about this in the "suggest new threads" post about a week before you posted this.

I also wonder what happened to that scene, and that line.

[WLAGuy]

BBM strikes again!  A friend of mine who has seen the movie a couple of times but was nowhere near as affected as I was, and knows how much I've been hanging out on this board, called me last night and in a wondering tone told me about a friend of his who saw the movie recently.  His friend thought the movie was very good, but wasn't moved to tears while watching it.  So his friend leaves the movie theater, gets into his car to drive home, and fifteen minutes into the drive suddenly bursts into tears out of nowhere.  Now, I had already told my friend the movie had this effect on people (including me after my second viewing), but I guess he thought it was just me.  Well, now he knows the power of BBM!  [spoken in loud, booming voice]

(Can you tell who's been working too hard today?)

[Hmmmm]

Flottie, what you have to understand about politics in the United States is: the "wedge issue" and using a particular social group to hold up to distortion scorn and ridicule, or worse, by the political right.  They can't overtly attack the blacks any more, though they still use some of the Reagan era codes, such as "welfare queens" or "block voting".  They can't very well attack the immigrant communinties, because their corporate allies are too much into exploiting (and keeping in illegal status)  the hundreds of thousands who enter illegally every year.  So, whom to attack?  Three guesses.  What's really behind it all, the driving force, is what Justice OW Holmes used to call "the money power". It is really the corporations, who use the religious right and the ignorant as their allies.  Their real agenda is not to put down the "homosexual agenda", but rather to create the impression there is such an agenda, set up a straw man to knock down.  Just so happens that part of their campaign is an attack on anything that restrains corporate power, and the power of the multinational corporations.   I don't think you have so much of that in Denmark.  Anyway, you can see how those they are attacking, could in turn embrace a film like BBM.  Can't you?

I agree with a lot of what you say.  And it is true that corporations get lots of legislative goodies when the electorate is distracted. But I do think that a lot of the large corporations and and multinationals are pretty strongly making a positive difference for gays. 

I was in a specific training a couple of years ago that is used with all employees in one company.  It did a very good job of showing
a) it is not a choice
b) look at it from a GLBT person's point of view
c) everyone needs to be respected and valued equally in the work environment so we can all be successful
d) here is how to be considerate (no gossip or speculation, be inclusive and use inclusive language [partners specifically invited to social functions rather than the word spouse etc.]) 

Some people objected at first but by the end it was pretty clear to everybody that to treat fellow employees otherwise just gets in the way and is just ...well.. rude and inconsiderate.  Ongoing reinforcement of the companies stance occurs every year.  It is very clear.

This has been a proactive training effort by the company over many years.  The company offers full partner benefits (health ins. etc.) as well.  The first specific words to employees on non descrimination to gays was about 15 years ago.

So, many large corporations and multinationals are doing a lot of good in this area.

[sherryfair]

Another sign of demand for our 'lil darling:

From Akron, Ohio:
http://blogs.ohio.com/moviespotlight/2006/01/bucking_bronco_.html

"For those who think that no one wants to see these stories, think again.  I get a plethora of voice and e-mails from readers during the course of the week and I can tell you that in my e-mail, phone, on-line Q&A column and snail mail, the No. 1 question has been:  when are we getting Brokeback Mountain?"

A later blog entry reassures readers:

"When are we getting Brokeback Mountain?"  Thankfully, I can say tomorrow (Friday)." [That's Jan. 20th.]

[BillN]

Flottie, what you have to understand about politics in the United States is: the "wedge issue" and using a particular social group to hold up to distortion scorn and ridicule, or worse, by the political right.  They can't overtly attack the blacks any more, though they still use some of the Reagan era codes, such as "welfare queens" or "block voting".  They can't very well attack the immigrant communinties, because their corporate allies are too much into exploiting (and keeping in illegal status)  the hundreds of thousands who enter illegally every year.  So, whom to attack?  Three guesses.  What's really behind it all, the driving force, is what Justice OW Holmes used to call "the money power". It is really the corporations, who use the religious right and the ignorant as their allies.  Their real agenda is not to put down the "homosexual agenda", but rather to create the impression there is such an agenda, set up a straw man to knock down.  Just so happens that part of their campaign is an attack on anything that restrains corporate power, and the power of the multinational corporations.   I don't think you have so much of that in Denmark.  Anyway, you can see how those they are attacking, could in turn embrace a film like BBM.  Can't you?

I agree with a lot of what you say.  And it is true that corporations get lots of legislative goodies when the electorate is distracted. But I do think that a lot of the large corporations and and multinationals are pretty strongly making a positive difference for gays. 

I was in a specific training a couple of years ago that is used with all employees in one company.  It did a very good job of showing
a) it is not a choice
b) look at it from a GLBT person's point of view
c) everyone needs to be respected and valued equally in the work environment so we can all be successful
d) here is how to be considerate (no gossip or speculation, be inclusive and use inclusive language [partners specifically invited to social functions rather than the word spouse etc.]) 

Some people objected at first but by the end it was pretty clear to everybody that to treat fellow employees otherwise just gets in the way and is just ...well.. rude and inconsiderate.  Ongoing reinforcement of the companies stance occurs every year.  It is very clear.

This has been a proactive training effort by the company over many years.  The company offers full partner benefits (health ins. etc.) as well.  The first specific words to employees on non descrimination to gays was about 15 years ago.

So, many large corporations and multinationals are doing a lot of good in this area.

Hmmmm, agree that large companies have done a lot to train people but I think that the main motivation is to avoid lawsuits and discrimination cases before state and federal governments. Nothing speaks louder to a company that the thought of having large settlements or fines imposed. I think a secondary consideration, and maybe quite important to companies led by intelligent people with a conscience, is that people who are told and trained to be tolerant work together better and so produce better results, as well as being the right thing to do. IMO, it is politicians who wish to direct people away from issues that they want to keep from receiving attention, and they can do that by letting surrogates on the right attack gays as being a large menace to society. This satisfies the right's need for an enemy and the politicians desire to refocus attention away from the many issues they should be addressing.

[Lance]

''This satisfies the right's need for an enemy and the politicians desire to refocus attention away from the many issues they should be addressing.''

and to win an election as the Bush group did.

[Timothy]

It is really the corporations, who use the religious right and the ignorant as their allies.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to hold true.  A huge percentage of the Fortune 500 have non-discrimination policies and offer domestic partner benefits.  They are way ahead of the public sector (governments).  Additionally, more and more you see businesses and business people lobbying legislators in favor of gay rights.  I believe it was in Cincinnati (or maybe Columbus - I forget) that the vote last November to overturn the anti-gay city policies was funded almost entirely by the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses including Proctor and Gamble.  And just this week Microsoft, Boeing, and several other large businesses in Washington announced that they were supporting new anti-discrimination policies.

However, those who seek to impose their religious rules on others, particularly the Southern Baptist Church and the hierarchy and political wing of the Catholic Church, have ratcheted up their lobbying efforts. 

The driving force behind the current anti-gay sentiment is not about businesses.  It is simply the front-line in a battle between conservative churches and those with whom they disagree - including more liberal mainline churches.  It's passionate religious belief.

[DaveL]

I didn't make myself clear.  Of course the "money power", the corporations, will stage HR "sensitivity" classes, etc.  Talk is cheap.  The point is, get those rates down.  Or don't pay tax at all, like ENRON, 5 years or so out of 7 of the end of its existence.  How does a multinational achieve such a tax rate?  You and I don't pay tax at that rate.  You find ways to swing the vote to DeLay, Bush, etc., whose only consistent policy is: keep taxes on the middle class high or raise them, reduce capital gains tax, reduce tax on incomes over $300,000.  The theatre of seminars and sensitivity training is a small price to pay for tax "relief" like that.

[DaveL]

So far, the right propaganda machine has exercised restraint with respect to BBM. But if, as I predicted, BBM  wins big on March 7 (correct date?), then, will the "fire and brimstone crowd" back off?  Perhaps, but Fallwell and Robertson  will probably continue to pound that "wedge"  into the natural constituency of the Democractic party, which is essentially everyone with an income under $60,000 p.a., telling them how those bad Democrats  who want "gay marriage" and worse (worse=what?  transexual "woman" marries transexual "man"--I leave that to your imagination, but Rick Santorum can only conjure up animal sex) are a threat to the American way of  life.

[terry]

  kw, if it's any comfort to you one of my gay friends saw it with his friends and he said that many of the younger gay guys were laughing at the inappropriate scenes.  They were even howling during the love scenes.  I think it's a maturity thing, not a gay thing.  They'd probably laugh at Titanic's sinking.

[Hmmmm]

I didn't make myself clear.  Of course the "money power", the corporations, will stage HR "sensitivity" classes, etc.  Talk is cheap.  The point is, get those rates down.  Or don't pay tax at all, like ENRON, 5 years or so out of 7 of the end of its existence.  How does a multinational achieve such a tax rate?  You and I don't pay tax at that rate.  You find ways to swing the vote to DeLay, Bush, etc., whose only consistent policy is: keep taxes on the middle class high or raise them, reduce capital gains tax, reduce tax on incomes over $300,000.  The theatre of seminars and sensitivity training is a small price to pay for tax "relief" like that.

Really I don't think you can link efforts to get a company's workforce to work well together and lobbying efforts to reduce corp tax rates.

I suppose some training could be hollow but they certainly are an expensive exercise if that is all it is in a company.  The main reason astute companies have pushed diversity training is because 1) their workforce was changing from US white male to a wide mix of backgrounds races, nationalities etc.  2) there was/is a worry that you better be able to attract the best talent because when the population ages you could very well have a shortage of skilled workers. 

Really, having all minorities expect to be welcome in a company and having people really work together well is just good business.  Without it a company could very well become uncompetitive.  That really is the main driver in astute companies.

As for getting tax breaks, of course they pursue those but as a separate activity.

[By the way, the middle class is a net receiver from the government, not a net contributor. Take the size of government spend and divide by the # of taxpayers.  Then look at the middle class tax bill per person and you will see the middle class tax payer is a net receiver.  Nor does the middle class pay the bulk of the taxes.  I am not saying that taxes are not a burden.  I am just pointing out that the middle class gets more from government that it pays into it.  But to continue the discussion further we would have to continue that in another thread.  It will be too off topic to cover here.]

According to data from the IRS:
- The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
- The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden
- The top 10 percent pay 65 percent of the income tax burden
- The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes

[Pug]

I happily did not encounter that b ut I would tell them to "shut the f*#k up" because they're not home in their living rooms

[Alberta]

I've seen the movie five times now and at each viewing except one, there is laughter through out at least half of the movie, and ALWAYS around anything gay.  That is, when Ennis and Jack are straight-acting things are relatively quiet (except for Thanksgiving at the Twists), but if Jack looks at Ennis, they kiss, etc., well, the laughing starts.  I think this is nervous laughter--the scenes in the movie while tame by most standards, are new scenes for people's film vocabularies-they don't know how to react and panic slightly whether they are gay or straight viewers.  The laughter generally stops from the scene where Ennis gets the postcard marked "deceased" and the theater is dead quiet until the end of the movie.  I'd be curious to know why audiences giggle or laugh at scenes some of us see as touching, romantic or sad.  I don't think it's necessarily homophobia....

[Pug]

Where are you from. I have seem the film twice in Doylestown PA, which is a very upscale community and there was none of that other than a few gasps. I have seen it twice in my hometown area of Allentown PA at an art/indie theater (discerning audience frequents this place) and in two showings there was not one giggle or sound at any point. i would have been upset by what you expereinced. I would base it on ignorance and lack of exposure i general.

[brokebackLJ]

Its funny here in New York...most of my audience's have been laughing a lot. Especially at the scene where Alma finds the boys making out. But at the end of the movie, it's the same, I walk up the aisles and see the people sitting in their seats crying and not moving. It's so touching....It usually is me, but I'm usually with friends who WANNA GO.