unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Politicized Psychology | Main | If It's Sunday, It Must Be Switzerland »

December 11, 2005



i hear what you're saying but it is true someone can be gay or homo or whatever they are in this movie without the other guy in the room. it doesn't take two men to make a gay man. that said, i hate the poster with the tragic fool from princess diaries. but i love the poster with the very actressy believable one from dawson's creek.

is anyone going to mention jason priestley's gay cowboy turn in tombstone?

John S.

These ads are absolutely baffling to me. The movie is about one particular couple... Jack and Ennis. The others (Jack and his wife, Ennis and his wife) are subordinate... almost incidental. Why show the incidental couples on the poster? Even the Academy doesn't usually shy away from this stuff. Weird.


I agree with John S. I figured the Academy and all the voters out there would just absolutely adore the gays. Odd.


Wait, this movie is about gays?


I dunno. Maybe it's supposed to be kitschy? And I would so go straight for Jake.


Maybe -- I'm trying to put forth the best spin -- the filmmakers are trying to reach a broader audience (pun intended).

Initial reaction by gays and women were extremely positive, but some "straight" men apparently were besides themselves. At least one occasion required police intervention. Silly? Of course. I understand why "straight" men don't have a problem with lesbianism, but do have a problem with gay men (hint: up the ass; contamination).

But nothing I've read or seen suggests that the intimacy portrayed includes THAT aspect of lovemaking. At most, well . . . it's not porno, for gawd's sake. But apparently the distributors wanted to take some of the "edge" off to make it more palatable to mixed audiences. Frankly, I find this more than silly. But then, I'm also gay.


C'mon guys, take some credit: they just read Malc's 'Why Brokeback will Bomb' post from a few days ago.


Actually, the two men's marriages are crucial, central, essential parts of the story, and both of the women's performances are beautiful and important. I don't see why all three pairings of the main characters shouldn't be represented. As if there's a "right" way to promote a commercial movie for a bullshit Hollywood award. Pick your battles, people. Pick your battles.


I can actually believe the argument that the producers are emphasizing the roles of the wives as a way of highlighting the performances by Williams and Hathaway in a bid for supporting nominations. Williams, from what I've heard, seems very much deserving of one.

But, the Jake with Anne and child pic is really a bit much, and the absence of any and all gay references in the Oscar advertisements does seem more than a little strange.


The NY Times nailed it when it said Heath Ledger's performance matches anything Marlon Brando or Sean Penn have ever done ...

The comments to this entry are closed.


Reconstruction in progress, now with 70% less Ben Wade!
RSS Feed
Add to My FeedBurner
Subscribe with Bloglines

"We really love your blog"

"I love reading you ... very entertaining!"
--Dan Savage

"Definition of Pathetic"
--Gay Orbit

"You can write, pal."

"[crickets chirping]"

"Love the Blog. Robbie is BRILLIANT and Malcontent is ok, too."

"You are too smart a person to be leaving one-note bitchy insults on the blogs of 22-year-olds."

"Fun, informative and fresh."
--Rod 2.0


"Love your site."
--A Atom Bomb

"Cool blog!"
--Made in Brazil

Who's Linking to Me?

Creative Commons License