I haven't seen the movie (and have no intention to, based on anything I've read about it) but apparently it isn't about gay cowboys, but rather, it's about gay sheepboys. That actually makes more sense (and I'll grant a lot of credibility to the take, given that it's a lesbian source). They'll put it in anything...

[Wednesday morning update]

Mickey Kaus explains to the apparently clueless why many of us are uninterested in seeing the movie:

My wild hypothesis is that more people will go see a movie if it features an actor or actress they find attractive! If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see Brokeback Mountain it's not because they're bigoted. It's because they're heterosexual. "Heterosexuals Attracted to Members of the Opposite Sex"--for those cultural critics wondering what a commercial disappointment for this much-heralded movie will Tell Us About America Today, there's your headline...

Good point about the cowboys technically being shepherds. Actually, the film gave a great sense of what it is to be a shepherd - many scenes with sheepdogs, horses, sheep running around etc. Gyllenhaal was very amusing dragging this sheep around by its hind legs. Anyway, I really came away with a cultural experience in that regard.

So many other films are shallow and devoid of these sorts of cultural impressions and details. Thats what I think Hollywood's problem is right now, not that they decided to make the first decent movie about a gay relationship and leave out all the obligatory gay cliches.

Long after conservatives have emotionally come to terms with the idea that macho guys everywhere do fall in love with each other and always have, this film will be known as a true work of art rather than as a lightning rod for the debate over liberal bias in the media.

For the time being, I completely understand that this movie makes some people feel uncomfortable, but let's not get confused between that and not liking Hollwood's general political persuasion. As I say, I'd like to see Hollwood spread out geographically, idealogically, culturally and artistically.

I consider myself heterosexual -- being happily married for 24 years should be evidence of that -- but I don't see why that should mean I can't empathize with a gay romance (tragic or not). But perhaps others are different -- can you really *not* empathize with it? Does it stimulate a 'yuck' reaction you can't or won't overcome?

I consider myself heterosexual -- being happily married for 24 years should be evidence of that

It could be evidence of it, but it could equally be evidence of bisexuality (that is, assuming it were legal, you could also have been happily married to a man). Only you know for sure. The only thing that it proves, really, is that you're not homosexual.

can you really *not* empathize with it? Does it stimulate a 'yuck' reaction you can't or won't overcome?

I can certainly empathize with it conceptually. But it's not a "yuck" reaction. It's a "supreme indifference" reaction. I simply can't motivate myself to devote the time, money and hassle of going to see a movie about it (of course, I can rarely motivate myself to see a movie about anything--I typically only go to a movie theatre once or twice a year).

I suspect that many will share my lack of motivation.

The film is being honored for being a good film. You are not required to go see it.

Does Mickey Kaus know it's only on limited release? In LA it's only showing at 3 cinemas. This is a guy who is determined to be pre-emptively outraged at a headline that hasn't even been written yet!

This is ludicrous Rand. Why do you mirror this crap?

Because we all know it's coming, Kevin. If the movie tanks, it will be because we're a homophobic society.

Last successful cowboy movie was a long time ago. The last successful modern cowboy movie was even longer ago. Last successful sheepboy movie is never.

This movie will get awards and do well in areas where some people will see it *because* it is a gay movie, and it will die everywhere else and homophobia will be blamed as Rand says.

It's a "supreme indifference" reaction.

That explanation would be a bit more credible if you haven't been so focused on this movie recently. You refered to it in at leat four separate recent blog entries.

I'm not at all indifferent to discussing the movie--I find the subject (and its sociopolitical aspects) fascinating. I'm just indifferent to seeing it.

Hey, I'll step into the firestorm - I am a heterosexual male, and a have a very close friend who is gay. I want him to be happy, and wish him success in his relationship - but I am uncomfortable about seeing two guys kissing on the street (or anywhere, really). I get over it (and I don't want to make them uncomfortable), but I think as a heterosexual my mind sees that as "whoa, those guys are very different than me, look out." So it is something I have to consciously overcome - the automatic response is bigotry. I think that causes at least some of the tension - that people are uncomfortable about gay issues, and are uncomfortable with what that uncomfort means about them personally.

But we're all very eager to see "King Kong," am I right?? According to all the reviews, that's a tender love story between a giant ape and a tiny human actress. No "yuck" reaction there, huh?

But we're all very eager to see "King Kong," am I right??

Nope. You're wrong. But if I did, it would be to see the cute actress, not the giant ape.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up, Rand. :-0

Last successful cowboy movie was a long time ago. The last successful modern cowboy movie was even longer ago. Last successful sheepboy movie is never.

I'll give you one out of three.

Open Range was only two years ago and was a modest success.

The Sheepman is a Glenn Ford and Shirley Maclaine comedy from 1958. Very funny, actually.