what’s so bad about gay cowboys?
Most of the time I am very comfortable living here in this beautiful state of Utah but sometimes things just get to me. For one thing, I still haven’t quite got the draconian liquor laws quite figured out.
The first aspect is pretty simple. You can buy 3.2 beer in grocery stores and supermarkets but you have to go to a state liquor store to buy full strength beer, wine, and all other alcohol. That is not so much of a big deal in itself as it it just like being back in Minnesota except there you had private ownership of liquor stores and there was one on every corner. It is just a bit of a pain coming from California and being able to buy all forms of devil juice at the supermarket along with all my groceries. But who really cares, so I have to drive a bit out of the way to get booze.
So what. I am not a big drinker these days anyway. What sucks are the prices. Liquor is not that bad, but I went to buy some good beer the other day and was shocked. At the state liquor stores they price beer by the bottle (making you do math in your head…bastards) and the average price is around $1.50 per bottle. I wanted a six pack of Sam Adams Cherry Wheat and saw that the price was $1.80 per bottle. That seemed ok until I realized that came to $10.80 for a six pack.
WTF?
That would only cost around $7.00 in California. I ended up only buying two bottles and then going to the grocery store and getting a 12 pack of Amstel Light for $12.00. Screw them.
Also, and again I am no expert here, but the whole bar situation is even more messed up. If I have this right, you can buy a beer or a drink at a restaurant but only if you also buy some food. You can buy a drink or beer in a bar but only if you are a member because they are classified as private clubs and a membership will cost you around $25.00 per year. So much for just stopping by somewhere for a bump, unless you happen to have purchased memberships in advance at all the bars in town.
Separation of church and state, my ass. It seems the LDS is bound and determined to keep this state in a time warp or something.
Which brings me to the original point of this post. A local theater owned by multi-millionaire car dealer and owner of the Utah Jazz Larry Miller decided to pull Brokeback Mountain from his screen at the last minute recently. (The whole story is here)
He said it was purely a business decision and also “I don’t think I’m qualified to be a community censor.”
Really? What the hell does that mean? Especially because he also claims he was unaware of the movie’s storyline at the time. What was his problem with it then? Was it the title of the film? Maybe he thought it was bad grammar and should have been called Brokenback Mountain. Does he hate Heath Ledger? Did he see Bubble Boy and decide he couldn’t bear the thought of seeing Jake Gyllenhaal’s face on a screen owned by him?
I swear to God, this is a weird place to live. Beautiful, but weird. You get the feeling you just stepped out of a time machine sometimes.
January 9th, 2006 20:51
Oh for God’s sake stop! You must be kidding! OK, Miller probably lied when he said he didn’t know the plotline–or maybe he didn’t. Simple facts are simple facts in an economic sense. I won’t be seeing Brokeback Mtn and it’s not on account of my being homophobic, or any other political bulls%$t. It’s because I really don’t care to watch a gay cowboy movie–and the media hype that is obviously being thrown at this thing to make it seem far bigger than it really is—is annoying.
Miller cancelled the screening because, and this is where I hazzard an economic guess, gay cowboy movies aren’t in real demand in Sandy,Utah. Now, New York, LA and SF might well be dying to see the film. Who knows, maybe even in Chicago, they are too….but by and large, the majority of Americans in the great middle–which is where you are—probably don’t want to spend 30 bucks so they can be senestized to the plight of gay cowboys. In fact, I’d bet they probably went in droves to see Narnia, King Kong, Harry Potter–heck, I’ll bet you that Goodnight and Good Luck did really well, too. In short, I’d be willing to bet that Miller saw that there wasn’t much ofan audience for the gay cowboy movie, media hype notwithstanding, and he pulled the plug (no pun intended).
Sheesh.
January 10th, 2006 04:16
Oh yea, the liberal media rant again…yawn.
The guess I am going to hazard is that Larry H. Miller is completely and utterly full of shit.
My main problem with this jagoff is that he obviously pulled the film because of the content and then did not have the balls to admit it.
If you are going to own a theater and let your own moral compass guide you in what films you show there, fine, that is your right and more power to you. You don’t want to show ultra-violent slasher pics? Then don’t. Have something against booking films involving lots of sex and nudity? Whatever man, that is your decision. But to be a big pussy and not be honest about his reasons shows he is maybe not so proud of his convictions.
Actually, now that I think about it, the business decision part was probably him saying he didn’t know what the movie was about. Maybe he feared sales of his cars to homosexuals would decline. Nice backpedaling, asshole.
BTW, the film is showing at other theaters in the area owned by either national chains or less moral owners and is doing quite nicely. Sorry Larry.
January 11th, 2006 10:43
I just think it is a shame that the choice was made with this movie. There are far more offensive movies out in the world than this one. Having not seen it yet, although I want to see it. BIG DEAL. I think Larry made a bad decision. Will it have a great impact on his millions - doubtful.He was uninformed and in my opinion blew it with this choice. He has the right to do what he wants as it is his theatre but having the power to do something is not nearly as powerful as not doing anything sometimes. The movie is in huge demand everywhere and this decision by LHM only made the demand greater in this part of Utah. Although my husband and I disagree I do feel it is a form of censorship. I just don’t go for that. Let the consumers decide. LHM is in a retail industry. He has to be used to this. No one was out picketing his theatre threatening not to be a patron, but they are now. Maybe it was a great PR move for LHM. Who knows. Good, bad or indifferent he sure bought himself a lot of publicity. Maybe he will run for the new Joseph Smith position of the Utah State Governing Board. Heck he is a shoe in.
January 11th, 2006 22:02
Well, while I have been debating this with Michael, you’ll have to show me the numbers on “in huge demand.” Again, I think there is a great deal of hype to this film—and not a lot else. One headline, apparently in order to make the film look like it was earning more than it has, said that the movie garnered more money per theater than any movie out that weekend. Considering that that weekend, it was only playing in a select few theaters–in NY, SF, LA and CHI, that is no wonder. It still was way at the bottom for total receipts–even accounting for its limited release. I haven’t seen it either–but my guess is that this is a hyped movie. I suppose the only way to settle the argument will be to see it—but I have to say that I hold little hope for that. Why, after all, is it so extraordinary? Because it’s about gay cowboys? As I said previously–is this some new under-represented segment of society that somehow needs representation–and the story is sublime and powerful because these two cowboys share a tent and some lovin’? Sorry-I cannot be sold. I saw the preview for it when I went to the movies last month and other than the simple fact that it was about gay cowboys, it looked like it was a typical epic romance film–and I’m trying to figure that out. How can it be so great? It’s a love story–plain and simple. And it’s about gay cowboys. Now, let’s be honest then and say that the only reason it is getting the press its getting is because it’s about gay cowboys. If it were a love story about a man and a woman…it wouldn’t be garnering anywhere near the attention. So, therefore–the hype cannot be real because the movie’s claim to fame is that it’s about gay cowboys.
January 12th, 2006 06:53
Oh goodness, a controversial film is being hyped to garner a bigger audience and more income for everyone involved? Excuse me while I don’t stop the presses.
As far as the subject matter, of course at its most basic level it is a love story but to simply dismiss it as such because you are sick of the hype is not being fair to it. There are issues being dealt with here that would not come up in a heterosexual love story. There is the fact that both men are married (to women) and have kids. You know as well as I do that the ordeal a family would go through following a homosexual affair is not the same as a heterosexual one.
This is not even a new theme for a film. Anybody remember Making Love? This film came out in 1982 and was about a successful LA doctor falling in love with a gay writer, much to the chagrin of his wife, and all the feelings and heartbreak that go along with this scenario. It did not receive the hype Brokeback Mountain is because times were different back then. Now gay is chic, right? Now we have wacky and irrepressible “Just Jack” on Will and Grace and those lovable, huggable, and ever quotable cuties on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. You can’t throw a rock these days without hitting one of these funny little stereotypes (and to borrow a line from Barton Fink, “But do me a favor…throw it hard”).
Brokeback Mountain is different. It shows homosexuals as normal people with normal issues and emotions and I think that is when folks start having problems with them. The two protagonists are not desperately scheming to get backstage at a Cher concert or trying to convince the world that it’s hip to wear a necktie as a belt. They are cowboys, one of the last bastions of macho maleness left in the world. (Of course, the Village People had one of them, but let’s leave them out of it for the moment.)
Now, as I have said before, I will most likely not see this movie, simply because it is not the kind of film that appeals to me. Straight or gay, I am not into the sweeping, epic, tragic romance thing. Now, if one of the characters chops the other one into pieces and feeds them to his neighbors or splitsto reveal that he is actually from Dimension Zero and is here to take all of our toothpaste back to save his own world, then my interest is piqued.
January 12th, 2006 08:50
You make excellent points and I don’t have a quarrel with those per se. I think perhaps you’re right in the sense that what is dealt with is a different scenario than most other such films. And I quite agree that if gay cowboy one were to feed gay cowboy 2 into the “chipper shredder” I’d be happier all around.
Still not quite comfortable with the idea that somehow the movie must be seen–that it is important and genuine. I don’t know how much more I should say, however, since I have not seen it. As far as queer stereotypes are concerned, I quite agree. Those shows do the opposite of building tolerance.
Remember Spin City? Great show and one of the lead characters was black…and gay. And he was a stereotype of neither. He was serious and funny, macho and sensetive–in short, that character built tolerance for the gay community.
One hopes in the long run–this film will do the same.
January 16th, 2006 16:41
now you can see for yourself when i’d complain about how backwards Utah is. i really hope you can leave someday and move to a place that isn’t so out of touch with the rest of the country.
January 16th, 2006 17:11
I feel your pain. It’s the same culture shock I still feel after having moved to Oklahoma from California six years ago. Oh well, in two years I’ll be living in Vienna where liquor laws are virtually non-existent.
January 7th, 2007 07:09
[…] I have ranted about him before when he pulled Brokeback Mountain (which I still haven’t seen and still have no desire to) from one of his theaters and then didn’t have the balls to admit why he did it. […]