Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reverting Box office performance section.

I have reverted the latest edits relating to the 'Box office performance' section of this article. It appears that certain editors are engaging in an edit war because they see that the two viewpoints are contradictory. Firstly, it should be said that this article is not a place for personal views as to whether or not the film will perform well based on its gay story line. Until the film is released, its box office success or otherwise remains unknown. Until such time, both views regarding the possible success or lack thereof (namely, that there will be much curiosity and interest, or that it will be unpoular) remain valid. I have edited the article to contain a version of words which reflect both views based on an earlier version. That said, the claim that the film's success 'is in question' should be referenced. The success of most films is 'in question' until they are put to the test at the box office. Perhaps it would be better to say that the film 'may prove controversial', or that it may impact on the success of the film. If the use of the words 'in question' are to remain then a reference to an authoritative source questioning the likely success of the film should be provided. I have tried to use a form of words which present both possible scenarios put forward by other editors and hope that it is NPOV. Please discuss further edits on the talk page before engaging in reverts and edit wars. -- Adz 06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

Bareback Mountain

The title has been adopted by a porn movie. I've created a separated page for it, with references to the origins of the name. Diego Moya 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also reverted a reference to 'internet pundits' refering to the film as 'Bareback Mountain'. While I have no doubt that somebody somewhere is refering to the film in this way, I think a reference should be provided to establish the credibility of these 'pundits'. A 'pundit' implies a knowledgable comentator so I think it's fair to ask who these pundits are. Are they just people on a yahoo group (in which case, their influence on the broader movie watching public is very small and the statement is misplaced in the context of talking about the likely impact on boxoffice success), or are they reputable movie critics such as the pupular Australian TV movie critics David and Margaret (At the Movies) or a reputable newspaper movie critic? If the name can be attributed to a reputable source (although preferably more if the claim is to be attributed to more than one 'pundit') then I think it can stay. If it can't, then it doesn't belong in the article. Also, I think the words 'film critic' or 'comentator' should be used instead of 'pundit'. -- Adz 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No real movie critic like Leonard Maltin is going to call it Bareback Mountain, but a google search of the exact phrase gives 413 results....all in reference to Brokeback Mountain. It's just a matter of time until you see it as a headline on a quasi-mainstream site. I guess everyone is a film critic, but I used the term pundit because "film critic" usually indicates a professional. Here are a couple of examples sites: [1] [2] Barneygumble 14:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if that's case I'm happy to let it back in. I can't do a google search on that term from the computer i'm on at the moment but will look it up later today. I think that a reference to 'bareback mountain' should be in the context that you put it (ie. amature comentators on blogs and (presumably) discussion boards) and should be NPOV. I think the logical place to put it would be after the sentence about Alexander and before This may affect the film's success at the box office. I think there should also be a reference to the google search page at the bottom of the article or something because I suspect other people may leap at the opportunity to challenge it and edit it out if it isn't referenced. I can't do a google search on that term from the computer i'm on at the moment but will look it up later today. -- Adz 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

December 12, 2005 - Given the subject matter of the film, I don't see how people can avoid thinking of it as "Bareback Mountain". The writers would have done the film a much better service by thinking of another title.

Oh, yes, let's do a service to a wonderful story by renaming it because people can make jokes about its title. What's next? Are we going to rename the 6th Harry Potter movie "Harry Potter and the History of Lord Voldemort" because the Half-Blood Prince does not serve as large a purpose in the plot as alluded to? Come on. It's named "Brokeback Mountain" for a reason, and anyone who cares to take the story seriously will see that. Soulsteelgray 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was named Brokeback Mountain because they broke each others back whilst barebacking :p. Hamedog 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my! Why you're SO clever and witty! Goodness! Do you have any Oprah or Titanic jokes while we're at it? --Deglr6328 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss the merit's of the film's title. There are various other internet discussion boards and chat sites for that. This page is to discuss the merits of and improvements to the artile. -- Adz 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Box Office Performance Section

I have removed poorly written text which which stated that "The movie was made for less than 14 million and as an 'indie movie'; so even a small box office could make it a success.". - presumably 14 million US Dollars.

On 30 Nov 2005 the whole Box Office Performance section was removed as per the 'what Wikipedia is not' policy (see:WP:NOT). I tend to agree that the text in this section is speculative and should probably be removed. As there was no comment on the talk page to accompany the earlier edit I thought I would write something here and give people the chance to comment. - Adz 06:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The movie comes out in 4 days, so there won't be much need for speculation - we'll have the actual numbers. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the comparasion to King Kong...it was totally irrelavant!

External links

I've removed the link to the Yahoo group. I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic, it is an age restricted group (and I really can't be bothered to log in to find out what is there), and going back through the history, it appears that there may be some rivalry between groups as the link used to go to a different group and was changed. - So I thought I'd remove it. Am happy for prople to put it back following discussion if these is some consensus. -- Adz 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heath Ledger paparazzi nude photo

Heath Ledger had a nude scene in which he jumped into a lake. The director intended to edit any actual frontal nudity out of the film, but a paparazzi photographer took photos of Ledger with a digital camera. The photos have appeared on the Internet and in some press publications.

Does anyone know where to find the nude paparazzi photo of Heath Ledger that is circulating on the Internet? Gilliamjf 12:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, if you REALLY want it, here it is: http://tbiet.tooblog.fr/images/brokeback_mountain_01.jpg

I found it just searching for regular screen shots in Google. -- Comex

broken link

I've moved the broken link here in case it comes back to life again as I have a suspiscion it will. I think it is a valuable link to have as long as it is working.

• Original story - Broken Link

I had read somewhere that the short story was also available somewhere else online. The good thing about this one is that it was a New Yorker page - the page that originally published the story, so no copyright issues. -- Adz 09:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Locking article as result of vandalism

This article has been experiencing several vandal attacks a day given the increase interest now that the film has been launched and the award nominations it has been receiving. There is no reason to suggest that the vandalism will slow down between now and the various award nights. I suggest that we ask an administrator to lock this article for editing. Most of the information that needs to be in the article is already in the article. If there is significant news we can discuss on the talk page and have it unlocked for a short period to update. In case of minor news, we can hold off and maybe unlock once every few days. What do others think? -- Adz 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of vandalism? If it's really serious then it should be locked. Scorpionman 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of vandalism, but it's not bad compared to many other unlocked articles. I don't personally think locking is warranted yet; there are some additions that will need to be made as the movie opens wider, and asking an admin to lock and re-lock is a pain. Enough people seem to be watching this article that the vandalism is pretty quickly corrected. Moncrief 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah some loser keeps adding lines about jello and communism. If you're going to commit vandalism, at least make it funny. This is just pathetic. Get a life, whoever you are doing it.

But anyhow people keep catching it almost immediately. 64.131.157.221 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think plenty of people have the article watchlisted and are vigilantly watching guard. I don't know that it would be the best time to lock the article now as the film is going into a wider release and we are in the very beginning of the awards season. As long as the vandalism remains petty and the reverts remain quick, I think we're okay as is. Boxclocke - "!" 08:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I made the comment above on 16 December, in the week following the release when there seemed (to me) to be a lot of vandalism. I agree that it has probably slowed down a bit, and I think that more people have it watchlisted now too, so am happy for it to remain unlocked. Adz 11:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

released in other cities on December 16

Bbatsell reverted an recent edit which said that the film will be released in other cities in the United Stated on December 16. Originally the article said that the film will be released in additional cities on Dec 16, so the words in the united States were added. I can't understand why this was seen as vandalism. The film doesn't open in Australia until January 26. I'm sure that it opens in different countries on differt dates. The original text was US-centric. User 70.92.165.42 was right to make the edit and inser the words 'in the United States'. -- Adz 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Don't know how it happened, but WP somehow gave me an old edit to the article when I went to edit. The only thing I changed was a fictional quote and the replacement of Randy Quaid with Dustin Diamond that had gone uncaught for 5+ edits. Not sure how everything else got changed as well. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

I thought it might be worth provinding this link: Wikipedia:External links in light of all the external links that are being added to this page. I am tempted to remove the link that currently says A non-commerical discussion board for this movie because I think it fits the criteria of 'a link which has been included to promote a website'. The discussion board - as yet - has had very little traffic. ... as an experiment though, it would be interesting to know whether the traffic picks up as a result of the link on this page. Anyway,. I thought I would wait to see what others thought because it probably also fits the criteria of 'fan sites' which is under the list of 'maybe OK' external links. -- Adz 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bi-phobia?

Upon watching this film, I noticed that both Jack and Ennis were both attracted to their female partners, like this quote when Jack is "fooling around" with Lureen in the back of the car:
L: "Do you think I'm going too fast?"
J: "Fast or slow, I like the direction you're going!"

If these characters are attracted to, and presumably love their female partners, why are they consistently called "gay" in reviews and commentary? These men seem to be bisexual to me. They are deeply in love with one another and are turned on by each other, but both men are also certainly attracted to females. This strikes me as biphobia, in the form of ignorance toward the existence of bisexuality, and the disputing of its "legitimacy."

Should this be addressed in the article?

JustADuck 22:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may venture an opinion, having seen the film and read the short story a few times: it would be correct to classify these characters (Ennis del Mar and Jack (John) Twist(, Jr.) as bisexual. It is not clear whether or not they are attracted to their respective wives. The impression given is that they have wives simply because that is the way the society of their day sanctions any kind of sex between consenting adults. I do not believe that either of the characters love their respective wives. The movie adds the manner in which Jack Twist and Lureen Newsome mate: Lureen's on top! Jack is a "bottom"! There is "biphobia" because, in my view of genetics, most people are bisexual to some extent. In heredity there are few dominant (heterosexual) and a few recessive (homosexual) and most mixed (bisexual). IMHO 70.243.140.233 22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that this is really relevant to this article, but Jack's statement to Lureen in the film, quoted above, is hardly proof that he is bi and not gay. Note that Lureen did the pursuing, not Jack, and that he was well aware of the expectations put upon him by society. The fact that he was "playing along" with Lureen does not really show that he's bi. Ask the many married and closeted gay men if they honestly prefer or are even interested in sex with women, or if they got married because that was what was expected of them. When Jack takes any kind of sexual initative, it is always toward men: whether it be Ennis, the hustler in Mexico (and we can assume there was more than one), or the friend's husband. That being said, this movie is groundbreaking in part because it doesn't label people - it is a love story between two specific men but it doesn't really attempt to label either man beyond that. So if you want to think that Jack is bi, go right ahead. Should it be addressed in the article? No. Very few people who are actually behind this film have used the word "gay" to describe the characters; its producers and director and actors aren't the ones calling it a "gay cowboy movie." That gay people identify with the characters and call them gay is to be expected, but isn't worthy of being disputed in this article (not that I personally would dispute that; just that the characters being gay isn't an official statement that needs to be countered here). Moncrief 01:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The film kind of tries not to label people, but it is very clear from all the articles that talk about Jake and Heath "playing gay" that people are making assumptions. It is seen by most people as Jack and Ennis "living the straight life", and then "jumping the fence" and being gay. I think that the fact that Ennis and Alma have marital problems, and Jack and Lureen act like co-workers sometimes, is not any proof that they are mono. They have sex, and good sex, with women. But the love Jack and Ennis discover at B.Mountain is the whole deep, all-encompassing, soul mate blah blah that is the focus of the story. But a bi person falling deeply in love with someone of one sex does not make that person mono. Yes, their marriages to women are largely the result of societal pressures, as it's good to be married in their world; that does not mean that they are 100% unattracted to their wives, or to any women.

Also, I did not in any way state that mono/homosexual men who are married and closeted prefer or are interested in sex with women. I said that Jack and Ennis, who I perceive as bi, not mono/homo, are certainly interested in sex with women. But they discover the soul-mate love and etc etc.

However, I understand the point made about the subject of biphobia/monosexism not fitting into the article. I won't make the change in the main article. But it's definitely something to think about. Why is it such a problem for people to see Jack and Ennis as having attractions to women? Is it threatening to monosexuals?
::JustADuck 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's POV to say that the sex between Jack and Ennis and women is "good sex." It didn't look that pleasurable to me: Ennis fiercely rolling his wife over as we're obviously meant to imagine he's thinking of Jack and Jack going along with Lureen in one scene and then telling Ennis later he could "phone in his marriage" after we see him look for a male hustler. And Ennis never again pursues sex with women despite being quite handsome and despite being pursued. He also doesn't care if Jack has an affair with another woman (something Jack doesn't actually do in the film but tells Ennis he has), but he says he will "kill" Jack if he ever hears details about him being with another guy. But, again, if you want to think of the characters as bisexual, that's certainly a defensible reading of the film. One could actually argue (though I wouldn't personally) that "gay" doesn't fit the characters exactly because the environment in which they live doesn't allow room for that definition and because the idea of a gay identity hadn't penetrated to 1960s Wyoming, so applying onto them a term they wouldn't use to describe themselves makes it an exercise of pure conjecture - especially so as they're fictional characters.

I also haven't seen evidence of too many informed people who have actually seen the movie insisting that the characters are gay and gay only. Certainly the film has become a sensation in the gay community and requisite viewing, but I don't see where the controversy is you're referring to. I don't see anyone being pressured to believe that the characters are gay and not bisexual. I don't hear many people who have actually seen it calling it the "gay cowboy movie." I think the very point of the film is to remind us not only about the massive societal challenges facing those who aren't heterosexually "monosexual" but also to remind us that love comes in undefined and unexpected ways. So, again, this "such a problem" you're referring to re: J&E being bisexual I don't see reflected in popular culture or the media.

But I'm glad we agree that this isn't relevant to the Wikipedia article. Moncrief 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I posted above that I believe that Jack and Ennis could be considered bisexual because they functioned sexually with both sexes. That is probably a misconception to those who believe bisexuality means that someone can love one of either sex. In that type of understanding Jack and Ennis would be homosexual rather than bisexual. It is also correct to point out that this issue is beside the point as far as the film is concerned. The point is that love denied makes for unhappy people: Jack, Ennis, Alma, and Ennis's daughters. It does not seem that Lureen is unhappy: she likes to wear the pants in the family with Jack in the more submissive marital role. The phobia here is really homophobia rather than biphobia. Jack wants to live in a monogamous relationship with Ennis alone, but Ennis is hindered from doing that due to the homophobia instilled in him from the time he was a 9 year old boy. I paraphrase: "If we allow that to take over us, we will end up dead," Ennis tells Jack. The moral of the story is "You don't know what you've got til it's gone." This is drama for the ages. 69.154.217.139 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Jake Gyllenhaal has said that he considers his character to be straight, and the story to be about two straight men who happen to fall in love.

Personally, I think this is a bit disingenuous, and it's certainly not supported by the evidence in the film: while it's arguable that Ennis is an otherwise straight man who happened to fall in love with another man, and while sex clearly becomes secondary to companionship over the years, Jack is clear about his sexual needs, and they include sex with other men.

Certainly the characters themselves wouldn't have identified as "gay" or "bisexual" in 1960s Wyoming. As to whether the characters are "really" gay or bisexual, everyone involved with the film at least has made it clear that it's not really important, and I tend to agree. Exploding Boy 06:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reluctantly having to disagree with Mr. Gyllenhaal I would say that the dysfunction in Ennis's and Jack's lives shows that they are not "straight" by any means. Their love is a natural part of themselves that they do not have a "context" for in that time and place. Ennis del Mar is the perfect character for the author, Ms. Proulx, to demonstrate the naturalness of sexual love between two men. He is not introspective nor sophisticated enough to "choose" a sexual orientation. It is something that he feels so deeply that his first separation from Jack causes him to be sick of the "dry heaves." The character of Jack Twist is more introspective, and has the right idea of pursuing a life together with Ennis as the only way for them both to be truly happy in life. Jack Twist is indifferent toward his marriage, and he doesn't have relationships with other women although he tells Ennis he does.

Sexual orientation is not the point in explaining their love for each other, but by present day definition they could not be considered "straight." Heath Ledger does not see the film as being about gay rights, but Jake Gyllenhaal does see a connection. 70.249.193.72 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We can argue all day about the point of the film. I think sexual orientation WAS a big part of it...the whole tragedy of the story was vested in sexual orientation, from their inability to be with one another to Jack's untimely death. That said, there shouldn't be any speculation on bisexuality, as it is, to a large extent, arguable; One could argue that their relations with females imply bisexuality. One could also argue that Jack's grimmacing during sex with laureen and Enis' unwillingness to have sex unless for reproductive purposes and preference for doing it "from behind" don't cannote a genuine appreciation for women.

I agree, but it is a side issue. I would differ about Ennis's unwillingness to have sex unless for reproductive purposes. The story gives more information here: Ennis is not unwilling to have sex unless for reproductive purposes: he is offended that Alma does not want to have any more children with him. I agree with all the rest of your points.

Just as a point, Ennis does have sex with women besides Alma - the bar waitress; but with her the relationship never lives up to what he has with Jack. Because of this and for many other reasons I see Ennis as at least some form of bisexual, Jack is even more open to debate. But despite that, I think it would be POV to try and label the characters in the article - there simply isn't enough information given in the movie or the story to unarguably claim that they specifically slot into the categories of bi or gay. As well, people have already correctly noted that many who worked on the film, as well as many reviewers, have steered clear of labels all-together. It may, however, be interesting to note how there is some lack of consensus on the sexuality of the characters, as opposed to definitely heterosexual or homosexual characters in other movies. --gbambino 01:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

UK coverage

Putting aside the mechanics of the film's plot, I have to disagree with most of the previous commentators in saying there is no controversy around the addressing of bisexuality that is worthy of inclusion in the article. At least in the UK, there has been significant controversy in the LGBT and Bisexual communities over the fact that the mainstream media has entirely erased bisexuality from it's coverage of the film.

Unlike Moncrief, "gay cowboy movie", is by far the dominant thing that been said about the film (closely followed by discussion of the "moral outrage" of the American christian right). --Myfanwy 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Error in Article

It was not the Vatican that changed the rating from "L" to "O" but was the result of a conservative pro-life website that was outraged and influenced the rating by the USCCB. I have made the requisite changes. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121607.html -simonmatt1100

Introduction too long

Somehow, probably due to an inexperienced Wikipedian, the introduction has grown overnight into something very unwieldy. Wikipedia articles do not put all their information into one section alone. The introduction should be 1-3 paragraphs long, with the rest of this information in sections below. I don't have time right now to fix it, but I will later if no one else does. Grrrr. 209.173.239.60 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

So sorry to add yet another category, but I couldn't thinhk where else this might fit.

This piece of "trivia"

Though critically acclaimed and lauded by critics the world over, is generally viewed as a box office dissapointment. Also, despite its numerous awards and nominations, its been speculated that the film is peaking too early and much of its momentum will have died out come Oscar time.

really doesn't seem... to a) be backed up in any way, even by hearsay, or b) fit into the trivia section in the first place. Shall I take it out? JustADuck 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody just took it out. JustADuck 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Someone keeps putting it back in. Not only is it unsourced, but the facts don't back it up at all. It doesn't really make any sense. Oscar voters don't vote based on box-office popularity or momentum, and most Oscar-winning films have made more money and "peaked earlier" in the year than BBM; the idea of "peaking" before the Oscars is bizzare, considering this is December and they'll start voting for the best film of 2005, including those released much earlier in the year, not long from now. At the same time, BBM is exactly the opposite of a "box office disappointment" considering its limited release. The more I think about those two sentences above, the more illogical they are. The two sentences contradict not only each other, but also reality. Moncrief 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another bit of trivia worth adding, IMO, is the fact that this movie, due to its controversial nature and the timing of it's release relative to national political events, has spawned a larger than normal number of political parody graphics and cartoons, both on the Internet and in traditional media. Example: http://blogs.citypages.com/canderson/images/kickbackmtn.jpg (71.195.130.159 18:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Has anyone verified that the frontal nude photo circulating on the Internet is of the actors in question and not their doubles? The person on the right doesn't look anything like Jake to me.