Utah theatre cancels ‘Brokeback Mountain’:
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.
I happen to disagree with Ruzicka. I am doubtful this shows young people that there’s something wrong with the film. Maybe if they never agreed to play it in the first place, they would have been portraying that ideal. Unfortunately, all they’re saying is that they are hypocrtical and are willing to go back on business contracts. I wonder if they cancel other R-rated shows after agreeing to play them.
I’m with you Kim. If they show other R-rated movies, they’re displaying a double-standard. They are saying that we don’t mind showing movies where people get chainsawed into pieces, or where straight people have lots of sex. But gay love? No way! That’s the ultimat
..e evil (!) I’m tired of this homophobia. You can indeed believe homosexual sex is sinful and refuse to show Brokeback Mountain as a consequence. But you ought to display the same moral re:
Casanova (R: man who sleeps around)
Munich (R: violent, bad language)
Syriana (R: violent, bad language)
Hostel (R: serial killer violence)
Grandma’s Boys (R: jokes about giving Charlie Brown a “handjob”)
All of the above films are showing at Jordan Commons. What a load of crap.
This seems like typical Utah hypocrisy. If Brokeback Mountain is so bad, then why would Jordan Commons play Hostel? (considered one of the most violent movies to come around in a while)
It’s the hypocrisy that gets me too. From their stance, homosexuality is worse than murder and violence. Hmmm….
Well then, we better not obstruct the viewing of homosexual content. We wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that violence and heterosexual promiscuity are acceptable.
Jack,
I do not see the correlation between your two statements.
Kim,
X is deemed unfit for viewing (bad pun) and removed from the theater. Therefore, Y and Z ought to be deemed unfit for viewing as well. However, because Y and Z will not be removed from the theater, X ought to be made available for viewing lest any viewers suspect that Y and Z are unfit for viewing.
What other path of logic can be deduced from trying to understand why good folks are outraged at the removal of at least one out of three films that are unfit for viewing by youth?
jack,
none of them should be shown. but basically they saying that homosexuality is bad, but murder and promiscuity and violence is okay?? kind of a double standard if you ask me.
“However, because Y and Z will not be removed from the theater, X ought to be made available for viewing lest any viewers suspect that Y and Z are unfit for viewing.”
Don’t you mean “lest any viewers suspect that Y and Z are fit for viewing”?
I don’t understand how removing Brokeback Mountain will make them think the others are unfit? I would think it would have the opposite effect.
Kim and Mary,
Yes, I do mean *un*fit. In other words, if one feels that Y and Z should go if X goes in order to be fair, then one seems to be admitting that Y and Z are unfit for viewing as well. On the other hand, if one feels that X ought to remain in order to avoid hyprocisy then one is advocating the content of Y and Z–let alone X.
no one is saying they should keep it. we are just saying they should be consistent. to single out one movie is to say that it is worse than the others. which it isn’t. actually Alma said that murder is worse than sexual sins. I, for one, am saying that they all show sinful behaviour and in order to be non hypocritical, the theatre should look at ALL those movies as showing things we don’t want our children to think is ” all right”. By singling out one movie they are making a statement that homosexuality is worse than murder or promiscuity. But they are there to make money. Can’t take out all the films, can they or they would be out of business? So, for all intents and purposes, this Utah theatre is picking and choosing their values. Murder is acceptable. Promiscuity is acceptable. Homosexuality is not.
Okay, let me digress into what’s going on in Utah–rather than on this thread. Do you believe that because folks are viewing murder on the screen that they are accepting it as virtuous?
re: #10
At the same time, if one feels that Y and Z ought to remain while X should be cancelled, then one is advocating the content of Y and Z.
From the Deseret News review of Hostel, by Christy Lemire:
Eli Roth won’t just show you a close-up of a chain saw severing the fingers of a hapless backpacker who’s been chained to a chair and tortured. He’ll also show you the bloody stumps falling onto the dark stone floor, as well as the partial paw that remains.
Such is the relentlessly graphic nature of “Hostel,” which surely must have been intended as a homophone for “hostile,” and is not for the faint of heart. (Reportedly not one but two ambulances were called to care for audience members who fell ill while watching the horror movie during last year’s Toronto Film Festival. Coincidence? Perhaps not.)
http://deseretnews.com/movies/view/1,1257,425000745,00.html
From the Salt Lake Tribune commentary “Why ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is so frightening” by Leonard Pitts:
I think gay men threaten our very conception of masculinity.
The amazing thing about ”Brokeback Mountain” is its willingness to make that threat, directly and overtly. These are not cute gays, funny gays, ”Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” gays. These are ”cowboys,” and there is no figure in American lore more iconically male. Think Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, the Marlboro Man. The cowboy is our very embodiment of male virtues.
In offering us cowboys who are gay, then, ”Brokeback Mountain” commits heresy, but it is knowing heresy, matter-of-fact heresy. Nor is it the sex (what little there is) that makes it heretical. Rather, it’s the emotion, the fact that the movie dares you to deny these men their humanity. Or their love.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3381236
To really understand the logic of this action, you would need to talk with Mr. Miller (the theater’s owner). I suspect you might disagree with the logic he used to arrive at the decision to not show this movie, but be assured he made the decision carefully. He is a very intelligent person with a very, very good business sense. Note: He is also an active member of the LDS Church…he’s an active member, but not a general authority.
It would be great to discuss one of Kim’s previous questions with Mr. Miller. The question being: how to deal with conflicts that arise between sound management practices and Church principles? He clears deals with these kinds of issues on a regular basis as he owns numerous car dealerships some of which do business on Sundays, a professional basketball team which plays some games on Sunday, a major sports arena which hosts events on Sundays, several shopping malls (with theaters) and a number of other successful businesses. (He began his business career parts manager at an auto dealership; hence, he is a self-made success.)
I said you’d likely disagree with the logic Mr. Miller used to make the decision to cancel the movie. This is, in my opinion, because your perspective of the issue would be vastly different that his because of the greater sphere of responsibility he carries due to his community, business, and Church exposure. By the way, the varying opinions individuals express on this type of issue are not necessary right or wrong, but clearly different and should be respected not ridiculed.
“I suspect you might disagree with the logic he used to arrive at the decision to not show this movie”
That’s just it. He did decide to show the movie. However, he later changed his mind. Virtually at the last minute. So yeah, I am not seeing the logic from a business or ethical sense.
Jack,
I just hope they aren’t viewing it at all.
However, I suppose the same question could be asked of the homosexual aspect. Just because they are viewing it, do they believe it is virtuous? They are either all sins, or none are, right? Why pick and choose? Economic reasons, I suppose.
I find the comments from the article by Leonard Pitts to probably be very accurate. The idea of the epitomy of masculinity portraying homosexuality is frightening for many.
Personally I have no desire to see Brokeback Mountain (although I have heard it is a very well done film) or Hostel or Casanova. I’ll stick with Narnia (when it comes to Movie Mill).
Obviously someone in charge of that theater shouted “I WISH I COULD QUIT YOOOO!” and then after a pause said “Ahh ferget it… I will quit you before we get started” and promptly canceled all showings of the flick.
Folks, we need to stop equating depiction with endorsement. It’s an old, tired and rather ridiculous argument. Just because a work of art depicts X, certainly does not mean it looks positively on it. No one is saying that murder is more acceptable than homosexuality because no one is saying murder is acceptable in the first place. I challenge anyone to name a single film that came out in the year 2005 that offered a positive depiction of murder. You can’t. The closest I can think of is the recent Derailed, and even that’s a very borderline case. I haven’t yet seen Brokeback Mountain, though this event has encouraged me to see it as soon as I can. So I can’t say yet how approving it is of homosexuality. But the bottom line here is that no one is saying that murder is more acceptable than anything, including homosexuality.
I haven’t seen it either Eric; however, based on what I have read regarding the plot, I am doubtful it approves or disapproves of homosexuality. It is trying to address an issue in which homosexuality plays a role.
“That’s just it. He did decide to show the movie. However, he later changed his mind.”
Are you sure of this statement? It is likely that only Mr. Miller and perhaps the theater manager are the only people that know at what point Mr. Miller became involved in deciding what was to be shown at that (those) theaters. I doubt is personally approves every movie should at each of the many theaters he owns. I suspect this is truly a unique case…do you know other wise?
It appears you are making some broad assumptions and the decision process. Please clarify, it would be interesting to know more details.
BTW, Mr. Miller’s involvement with his basketball team varies from very personal face to face involvement with the players at the court level, to not attending any games for weeks/months at a time.
Thanks.
“It is likely that only Mr. Miller and perhaps the theater manager are the only people that know at what point Mr. Miller became involved in deciding what was to be shown at that (those) theaters.”
Quite true. When I used his name, I was referring to the decision of the theatre; a similar usage as “Washington” meaning the American federal government or “Ottawa” meaning the Canadian federal government. I didn’t mean him specifically; althought, that could have been clearer.
Actually, for that matter, I have no idea whether he was even the one who made the decision in the first place to cancel it.
I wonder if it was actually Larry Miller that made the decision. The article doesn’t give any insight into the decision making process. I doubt that he is intimately involved in every decision made by all of his businesses. On the other hand, this seems like the kind of decision that would only be made with approval and/or direction from the top.
Either way, I’d be interested to know the rationale of the theater managment. If they’re taking a moral stand against the content, then I agree with others who have suggested that they should be consistent and stop showing other movies with offensive content. Surely movies depicting explicit extramarital heterosexual sex should be at least as troubling to concerned theater owners as a movies about gay cowboys. The former would be more tantalizing to impressionable audiences, I think.
But if the theater is making a business decision based on community feedback, I’m cool with that. As a business owner you can never ingratiate yourself too much with the community. In this case, though, the inconsistency and hypocrisy would lie in the community. I want to believe that the community is smarter than that, being as how those are my people, but you can’t always get what you want.
Here’s my guess at what happened: I bet some small community contingency (like the Eagle Forum) contacted theater management and/or ownership and threatened a boycott or a demonstration or something like that and management got scared and caved.
Ok, I understand. You’re using speculation rather than facts to explore this subject. Sometimes that can be an interesting approach.
Based on local news report, it is clear that the decision to pull this movie was made my Mr. Miller.
If you have not done so, Google “Larry H Miller” as check out the list of hits you get. You’ll be amazed at the scope of Mr. Miller’s business holding…I didn’t mention he owns a Triple-A level baseball team, has been the producer of several LDS movies and is building a NASCAR quality auto racing complex West of Salt Lake City.
Kim: “…based on what I have read regarding the plot, I am doubtful it approves or disapproves of homosexuality. It is trying to address an issue in which homosexuality plays a role.”
The way the scenes are filmed, where Jack and Ennis are together in the mountains, with the stunning Canadian vistas and the moving soundtrack music, might tend to portray their relationship in a positive manner; especially when contrasted with the stark portrayal of Ennis’ depressed, broken and violent Wyoming existence. Outside of that element, nothing in the script, or the short story upon which it is based, approves or disapproves of homosexuality in any way.
The short story, Brokeback Mountain, was published two years before Matthew Shepherd was senselessly murdered in Wyoming for being gay. The message of the film is to show the damage that bigotry and homophobia can inflict on individuals and families touch by homosexuality. Although it is a work of fiction, the movie presents a tale that, for many, is disturbingly true.
In my opinion, the “example for the people of Utah” that pulling the film set, ironically, is only one of bigotry and fear.
“Based on local news report, it is clear that the decision to pull this movie was made my Mr. Miller.”
If it was indeed Larry Miller who made the decision to pull it, it was the manager of the complex, ever watchfull of the bottom line, who, no doubt, booked the highly praised film in the first place. So I doubt it was a case of a single person “changing his mind.”
Martin,
Nothing I have said has been speculation.
Front page of the popular BBC entertainment page:
A cinema in Utah has pulled a scheduled screening of gay Western movie Brokeback Mountain at the last minute.
The Jordan Commons Megaplex in Salt Lake City is owned by Larry Miller, a prominent member of the Mormon church, which is against homosexuality.
It also is the top news story at my favourite movie search page http://www.imdb.com
Now wouldn’t it be nice if we were consistent out there in Utah. Wouldn’t it be nice if the movies that were pulled made a stand against adultery and fornication and senseless violence which affects the moral behavior of 95% of the people in that state instead of villifying the 5% who are dealing with feelings that they did not choose? Then we could stand up and be proud of our standards and show the world that we are a light set upon a hill that shines forth with God’s standards unto all the world.
Oh, but the Saints in Utah are not ready to send the world that message because they do not really believe it. If they did, their actions at the Sandy megaplex would have already caused the theater to change its policy on all those other evil films. By just picking out the gay movie, it makes us look like a bunch on non-progressive boobs instead of a principled people who truly believe in the law of chastity.
We have aligned ourselves with the worst elements of the non-thinking religious right. And the sad part is, we really think that this is what we should be doing to fight the breakdown of the family instead of crusading against divorce, adultery, fornication, and violence. Oh, and let’s not mention living beyond our means which creates more bankruptcies then any other state. What is the greater sin, walking away from your financial responsibilities because you cannot control your lust for material possessions or two men dealing with unchosen feelings? Let’s keep taking snips at the branches but leave the roots of the problem alone. That really makes sense.
I have to disagree with most of the comments. I haven’t seen the movie but I don’t have a particularly good task in my mouth surrounding this movie. I agree with Larry Miller and his decision.
There’s lots of films that would leave a bad taste in the my mouth, therefore I chose not to see them. I agree with Kim and others that find the breaking of a contract while ignoring the other R-Rated films, is unethical and sending a wrong message. I see alot of people literally and figuratively close their eyes and plug their ears and sing “la la la la…” whenever the word “gay”, “lesbian”, “homosexual” is mentioned, except of course if the conversation is negative then tend to jump right in and have stereotyping fest.
I have seen 139 films that were released in the year 2005, and I can say that this one is, hands down, the most disgusting. Not only is the theater’s decision appropriate, whether for personal or business reasons, but I’m willing to say that anyone, particularly Mormons, who disagree with the decision are the hypocritical ones.
We generally look down on films which stand in defense of things which we believe are contrary to commandment. Why make an exception for homosexuality? What is it that makes homosexuality so special that it deserves a sanctified asylum, apart from all other sins, where it can’t be touched?
If there was any question that the last days are truly upon us, there is no longer.
eric
i don’t think you are reading what is being said. it’s not an issue with the movie itself. or wanting it to be shown, it’s the whole issue of singling out THAT R-rated movie above all OTHER R-rated movies. you said it, what makes homosexuality so special that it deserves a sanctified asylum? what’s hypocritical about wanting the same judgement for all the other movies that deal with also sinful issues? i don’t see any of them, don’t want to. but my problem lies with the placement of this. basically the picking and choosing of values.
What does make homosexuality special that it is set apart from all other serious sins while fornication, adultery and all manner of senseless violence is “freely” shown on movie screens with outcry from the saints. The saints just don’t go to those movies. The difference is that we have “grown-up” with these sins on our television sets and movie screens, Miller is not pulling those movies off his screens. , just ones that depict homosexuality between cowboys.
Mary,
I have never in my life seen a film defend sinful issues the way this one has. Kinsey is perhaps the closest. But this one is worse. There’s no picking out, because there’s absolutely nothing to compare it to.
“What is it that makes homosexuality so special that it deserves a sanctified asylum, apart from all other sins”
This was precisely the point of my post.
There are some on this thread who aeem to imply that homosexuality is in a different category of “sin” because such feelings aren’t chosen (how ever truethat may be), and then go on to judge the masses because of their vices. Interesting.
Inasmuch as I can’t tolerate sex or violence on the screen, I’m going to take Eric’s word on this one. If it moves in the direction that Eric seems to imply–that is, making sin appear virtuous–forget it. I’d only throw very soft mushy vegetables at the screen.
Eric said: “I have never in my life seen a film defend sinful issues the way this one has.”
I guess Eric and I saw two different movies entirely. Did I miss something?
The fact that homosexuality wrecked havoc on the lives of everyone in the film, you call that defending sin?
“I have seen 139 films that were released in the year 2005, and I can say that this one is, hands down, the most disgusting. ”
Yeh, blugending people to death with tire irons ‘is’ pretty disgusting. I see what you mean.
We wouldn’t want to send the message out to the good people of Utah that violence toward homosexuals is ok.
But perhaps we already have. I think that singling out this movie with such out-of-the-ordinary fear only contributes to further marginalize and demonize gay people.
Yes, I’m afraid it’s possible that we did see different films. But let me explain what I saw.
On the surface, the film is a basic anti-anti-gay film. It wants you to be angry with people who hate gays so much that they would kill them. I think it does this successfully. And I think it’s a good message, a Christian one. But I don’t think it’s this aspect of the film that people are concerned about.
There’s another level of the film, a deeper, more subtle, more powerful one. The film also wants you to be angry with anyone who, for any reason, could possibly believe that there is anything wrong with an act that is so beautiful, so natural, so simple – an act that is as lovely and as natural as the great outdoors itself. I think it does this successfully too.
Unfortunately, some of us believe, for religious reasons, that there is something wrong with homosexual activity. Certainly we are going to be offended for being told that we are bad people for our religious beliefs.
I want to know why someone would watch 139 movies in one year??? I didn’t even realize that many movies came out last year!!!
i’m not sure why this point isn’t getting through… no one on here is saying he SHOULD show brokeback mountain. we are saying that the same criteria should be used for OTHER movies too. i believe fornication and adultery is wrong too. oh yeah, and murder too, don’t you?
Mary,
Your point is getting through very clearly. The problem is, the commentators have no way of intelligently responding because they know they are being inconsistent.
They can accept “traditional sins” such as divorce, greed, adultery, fornication and unjustified violence in their films, especially if the film shows that there are bad consequences to following this behavior. And they will say that even if it does not show the bad consequences, it still shows “real life”.
There is no way that they can defend the fact that the Utah movie houses do such a brisk business in these types of films. Even if you assume a 50% activity rate among the LDS population in the Salt Lake Valley and you make the assumption that these active members do not frequent such films, you would see the theatre owners forced to show more decent films just to meet demand.
It is pure scapegoating. We don’t want the light shined on us and how we have compromised our standards in order to wallow in worldliness so let’s cast our indignation upon the gays.
I am not defending the movie as I am incorrectly accused of doing (even though I do experience these same feelings). As MahNahvu states “The fact that homosexuality wrecked havoc on the lives of everyone in the film, you call that defending sin?”. For me, the movie shows an adult audience what someone experiences in their life when they are dealing with these feelings. It tells me I am not alone.
The negative comments truly do show a homophobic reaction. And by “homophobic” I DO NOT mean the justifying of gay sex. By “homophobic” I mean the hatred and revulsion exhibited towards gay men and women for just being gay; for just having these feelings. The true homophobe refuses to even acknowledge that such feelings exist in an unchosen way. They still believe that the feelings are chosen even though they will not state that publicly for fear of being labeled a hillbilly.
While it may be a cliche’, straight men (and women) are threatened by the existence of gays because their fixed definition of masculinity (and femininity) is too central to their limited worldview. In my opinion, these are the people that Joseph Smith spoke of when he stated that he could not get anything new into the heads of the saints that went against their established view of the world.
Gays exist. They have always existed. They were known as eunuchs in the Old and New Testaments (check the original Hebrew word “saris”, not the revised definition of eunuch established by the Catholic church). Jesus spoke of gays in the New Testament (Matthew 19) and Isaiah also spoke of them (Chapter 56:3-4). There is place for them in the Kingdom of God. There is nothing wrong with them. They have a special gift from God that is not yet understood. They are expected to live all the commandments of God just like any straight person. There is nothing to preclude them from entering into the same covenants as anyone else. You can demonize them all you want. You can cite them as a sign of the last days all you want. You can try to justify your own sinfulness by making them the scapegoat.
But as the Lord states “For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant: Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”
Sally,
LOL! It’s actually not the half of them. A quick glance through Eric D. Snider’s reviews show that he reviewed over 300 in the year 2005.
Mary (and Michael), I understand exactly what you’re saying. It’s that I disagree. I don’t know the details of the decision, but I don’t believe it was made purely on content. If it was, then you are correct.
But in this case, I believe the decision was heavily influenced by what the content was saying. For this, there are no comparisons. I have seen a lot of evil films in my life, but I have never seen one that dared claim in earnest that murder is acceptable and that anyone who disagrees with murder is wrong. Such a film, if ever made, would certainly be satanic. And it would be so controversial that it would never even make it into general theaters in the first place, much less Utah.
Yes, there are films such as Ocean’s 11 that make theft look cool and films such as The Italian Job that even try to justify theft, but I know of no film that has ever tried to make people feel guilty for believing that theft is wrong. With the possible exception of Kinsey, I think the same goes for adultery as well. Thus, by this standard, they are being consistent.
Even if that was the reason they pulled it, is it still not inconsistent to agree to show it in the first place and then pull it at the last minute? I doubt the message of the film changed in that time.
I agree Kim. It’s bad form. Kind of like BYU pulling the Rodin exhibit after trucking all the sculptures in there. Keep it in or keep it out, but things like this just stir people up. (Of course, that could be the idea.)
Michael
“The negative comments truly do show a homophobic reaction. And by “homophobic†I DO NOT mean the justifying of gay sex. By “homophobic†I mean the hatred and revulsion exhibited towards gay men and women for just being gay; for just having these feelings. The true homophobe refuses to even acknowledge that such feelings exist in an unchosen way.”
You are entirely correct. You know,for myself, I have always tried not to judge anyone for their choices. I have no idea what it is like to be homosexual and I don’t doubt for a moment that it is not an easy path. It isn’t just a flip decision, right? I have known many individuals who were either fully practicing gay, or who had such tendencies. I don’t at all judge them because I cannot walk in their shoes. I have compassion for them. I truly do. Knowing the people I have known I can’t ever feel revulsion because I know them as good people. Trulr desiring to live happy, productive lives. How can I or anyone judge them? I don’t have to agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle to still not judge homosexuals.
It is fear and revulsion that people show. I have this habit of often being able to see the other person’s point of view, or at least being able to not hate them just for making certain choices. This has gotten me into trouble in the past. But I can’t help it. Everyone is a child of God. And if one of my children were to be gay, or one of my siblings, or a friend? Could I love them less? No. Because I know them, I know who they really are and I can’t comprehend not loving them.
Eric
I don’t know if it is making homosexuality alright. From what I understand, it’s just telling a story in which homosexuality plays a role. Like Michael said there are homosexual individuals who live their lives and I for one don’t even have a clue what their inner turmoil is.
I remember reading Carol Lynn Pearson’s story about her husband, and even then feeling such a sadness and compassion not only for her but for her husband. He didn’t ask to be gay, he struggled with it, loved his wife and family, but could no longer fight it. I don’t envy him his inner struggle and I don’t judge it, because I don’t know it. That book was not “pro” gay. But throughout it, there was never a sense of judgement or anger for homosexuality. It was a very compassionate book. What she went through, what he dealt with, are so hard. And throughout it all, her love for her husband remained constant. She couldn’t hate him or even dislike him. That was a real testimony to me about the power of the Atonement and love.
Eric: Unfortunately, some of us believe, for religious reasons, that there is something wrong with homosexual activity.
For many people, this is the very definition of homophobia. If you don’t think that loving homosexual relationships are as proper and good and beautiful as heterosexual ones, you’re an evil bigot. It’s not enough just to have compassion or tolerance toward people who have homosexual feellings and/or relationships. You have to accept and value homosexuality itself as a virtue.
If this is the message of Brokeback Mountain (which I couldn’t really know unless I saw it), then I agree with Eric that that would make it different from other films that depict sinful activity. And I would be sympathetic to a religious person who singled the film out and decided not to support it by exhibiting it.
I’m curious, Eric, do you think that Boys Don’t Cry is anything more than an anti-anti-gay movie? If not, what does Brokeback do that Boys Don’t Cry doesn’t that pushes it into the realm of condemning any sentiment that is not pro-gay?
I find it disconcerting that some cannot entertain the possibility that there may be reasons other than “homophobia” which generate diversity in opinions regarding homosexuality. Talk about “phobias.”