From yahoo

quote:

SALT LAKE CITY - A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." The film, an R-rated Western gay romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead it was pulled from the schedule. A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience." Cal Gunderson, manager of the Jordan Commons Megaplex, declined to comment. The film, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is about two cowboys who discover feelings for one another. The two eventually marry women but rekindle their relationship over the years. The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film. Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah. "I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said. Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, called it disappointing. "It's just a shame that such a beautiful and award-winning film with so much buzz about it is not being made available to a broad Utah audience because of personal bias," he said.

Well, it's the theater owner's right, right?

No surprises... it's America, and as if that weren't enough, it's UTAH of all places.

I suppose the decision to pull it out of theaters due to inconvenience had absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful general local cultural views of promoting discimination against gays and lesbians.

I'm amazed that this movie has gone so far into public and in mainstream theaters in America. I've seen giant billboards of it up right next to other movies like "Harry Potter: 4" front and center on theaters in suburbs. But I question whether it will get it's message across.

When I finally saw this movie a couple days ago in a suburban theater 20 miles North of Seattle, it was packed! But mostly with women. (Maybe there were lesbians in the crowd?) When I passed the theater in the Grove in LA showcasing this movie, it was swamped with gay guys. It seems to like this movie will strengthen the ideals of those who support homosexuality in general, but won't succeed in touching those who are still anti-gay, because those people will either choose not see the movie, or won't have access to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic From yahoo Well, it's the theater owner's right, right?

That's true.
I seriously doubt it will effect anyone really.
If they're that desparate, they can just go to another theater.

As for breaking the contract, they'll just have to deal with the consequences...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

yes, its the owners right but its the principle its a goddamn movie ffs, a romance by all accounts. oh no, not two guys!?

but america isnt AT ALL obsessed with sex, is it trancer x or lepanto?

land of the free & home of the brave my arse.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, its the owners right but its the principle its a goddamn movie ffs, a romance by all accounts. oh no, not two guys!? but america isnt AT ALL obsessed with sex, is it trancer x or lepanto? land of the free & home of the brave my arse.

So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film?
The horror!

If it's a privately owned theater then who the hell cares?

Projecting social 'values' on someone else's individual principles is not right.
I say if they doesn't want to show it then thats their choice.

They're in trouble because they broke a contract, not a 'principle' that wasn't even theirs in the first place by the looks of it.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film? The horror!

no, i would consider that equally shit & intellectually pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If it's a privately owned theater then who the hell cares? Projecting social 'values' on someone else's individual principles is not right. I say if they doesn't want to show it then thats their choice. They're in trouble because they broke a contract, not a 'principle' that wasn't even theirs in the first place by the looks of it.

hey, i defend their right to make the choice with their own theatre for sure. just as i defend my right to criticise that choice when its the wrong one. ffs the answer is always to ban, to censor to stop i have a real problem with decisions that highlight or replicate patterns of behaviour or attitudes i disagree with, thats all.

theres a difference between being legally & (for want of a better term) morally right. decisions like this hardly promote tolerance of lifestyle choices.

its a movie. about gay men. big fvcking deal. yeah, lets 'set an example' for utah people by showing that narrow-minded christian fascists are more important than our right to see art.

___________________

teehee
their theatre, their choice. big deal

pkcRAISTLIN: of course it wouldn't matter the least if it was a romance or a war movie. app it's not in their moral mind to show it either way. certainly you have morals/points of view that you would stand up for? and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice? wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

anyways, has anyone seen it yet?

Last edited by nils on Jan-11-2006 at 06:03

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film? The horror!

It would be different because straight people aren't socially oppressed or underrepresented in the media. There are a plethora of straight films and in fact, nearly every PG-13/R movie has a sub-plot where tension between two heterosexuals resolves in the end with (another fucking) kissy happy hetero ending. Meanwhile, it’s really refreshing for gay people to go to a normal theater instead of being pushed into a mediocre smaller one in the alternative gay section of town just to see a movie that for once they can relate to on a level of romantic intimacy.

Brokeback Mountain is not ONE of many gay films, but it's ONE of the first of its kind because of how good the content is and how far it has made it into mainstream theaters. This film is trying to integrate gay culture back into straight culture, and by pulling it, the owner is pushing gay culture back into its closet. I think pulling this film and reasoning that, "not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah," is upsetting because its tolerating discrimination against gay people. If you can reason and accept that it's the owner’s right to pull it, then you should be able to accept this kind of discrimination if an owner of a theater in North Dakota pulls “Men in Black 2” because it deals with black people, or if an owner of a theater in Oklahoma pulls “Meet the Fockers” because it deals with Jews.

It doesn't feel great to be discriminating against, but if it's okay for Larry Miller to discriminate when he opens his doors to the public to come in, then he is undermining the gay civil rights movement. If a tavern in the South wouldn't let black people in, would it be right to tell them not to be upset, but to go to the tavern down the street?

quote:

Originally posted by nilsit's not in their moral mind to show it either way. certainly you have morals/points of view that you would stand up for? and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice? wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

In this case, it’s a matter of morals and opinions, but I stand for equality for gay people. Censorship is one thing in private, but this theater is open to the public. If it is their right to not show the movie, it still doesn’t mean that I or other people who think the purpose is wrong, can’t openly protest or display our disagreement. Just because they have the right to do this, it doesn’t mean what they are doing is necessarily right.

quote:

Originally posted by nilsanyways, has anyone seen it yet?

I saw it two days ago and have been feeling pretty moody since. No "gay" movie I have seen as ever struck a nerve like this one has. It's not just about two gay men. It deals with the relationship between the straight and gay world and events that gay people deal with in reality. It’s great.

quote:

Originally posted by nils and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice?

well it would be if every theatre owner decided to folow suit, wouldnt it? and yeah, if that happened id say it was a pretty big fvcking deal.

quote:

Originally posted by nils wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

id like some of whatever youre smoking. nowhere have i stated they should be hindered from doing so. i even said i supported their right to make such a decision, just that i disagreed strongly with their choice.

pass the joint dude.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson In this case, it’s a matter of morals and opinions, but I stand for equality for gay people. Censorship is one thing in private, but this theater is open to the public. If it is their right to not show the movie, it still doesn’t mean that I or other people who think the purpose is wrong, can’t openly protest or display our disagreement. Just because they have the right to do this, it doesn’t mean what they are doing is necessarily right.

agreed. of course, these sort of battles have, and will, continue. they are results of the democratic society. i say, let them do whatever they feel like. they are taking a stand in public. you might find it offensive and pick up the axe on the other side, or just leave it be. (well that wasn't bringing any new facts to the table )

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well it would be if every theatre owner decided to folow suit, wouldnt it? and yeah, if that happened id say it was a pretty big fvcking deal.

until then

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN id like some of whatever youre smoking. nowhere have i stated they should be hindered from doing so. i even said i supported their right to make such a decision, just that i disagreed strongly with their choice. pass the joint dude.

just throwing out a series of questions to get a point through. no need to be calling names

quote:

Originally posted by nils until then

You mean BACK then, when most theaters refused to show gay films, no matter how good, because the content was "far too controversial". I don't want America to go down that road again.