Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Brokeback Mountain
pip_helix:
i loved it, i thought it was a beautiful story, and visually stunning. the scenery was so perfect.
on a related note, and because we all need a laugh, i present...ricky gervais and friends.
Tergon:
While the movie was very well shot and directed, and the actors did a good job, I just didn't like Brokeback Mountain because of its story. Not because I don't like gay men, just the opposite - a good friend of mine is gay and nobody cares.
The problem with Brokeback Mountain was that the story wasn't new, or original, or anything. It's cashing in on political correctness by "going there" when other people won't. That's all well and good for social rhetoric, but it does NOT make a good story. And aside from the homosexual protagonists, this story was basically a cliche'd chick-flick.
Don't believe me? Well, imagine if Heath Ledger's part had actually been played by a woman. Nothing else in the story changes - just that he becomes a she. And as soon as we do that, it's a rom-tragedy like all the millions of others out there, except that this one is set mostly outdoors rather than in an office in New York.
You cannot just claim that a story is new and on a different emotional level just by cashing in on the discriminate-a-minority bandwagon. Even if it's in their favour, you're abusing the system of political correctness. Which is bad.
The movie was well done, but the story? Utter shite.
pip_helix:
but even if it were a heterosexual couple, there's the emotional aspect of some sort of forbidden love. imagine if it were an interracial romance. or intergenerational. at one time or another, any of those relationships would make people antsy as well.
Tergon:
Exactly my point. It's the "forbidden love" cliche that has already been done to death.
Shakespeare did it better in Romeo & Juliet, and literally thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of writers, have done it since. This time it was done with gay cowboys instead of star-crossed lovers on a Verona night. That doesn't make it a new or interesting story. It's just cashing in on the fact that making a movie about gay people will get attention at the moment.
Like that show Commander & Chief. You know, the one with the female US President?
If it was a male president, it'd just be a less-interesting version of The West Wing, which is saying something. Instead, they claim it's a different show with a female president. The *message* here is that the ONLY thing that makes this show interesting is that the president is a woman. And to me, that is really not that exciting or interesting. Okay, she's a woman. So what?
A story does not become new and exciting just because you put a new socio-political spin on an older, pre-existing story. And you can't pretend that it does.
pip_helix:
--- Quote from: Tergon ---doesn't make it a new or interesting story. It's just cashing in on the fact that making a movie about gay people will get attention at the moment.
--- End quote ---
the same way guess who's coming to dinner cashed in on interracial relationships.
the same way harold and maude cashed in on intergenerational relationships.
it doesn't fucking matter if they're black, white, old, young, gay, straight, whatever. it's just an emotional piece. anyone is well within their right to dislike it or disagree with it, but to flat-out call it shit? that's just disrespectful.
stories are recycled all the time. that doesn't make them any less poignant or relevant.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version