Honestly, I feel that Brokeback Mountain and Dream Boy are nothing alike (in tone, in the themes they tackle, in the protagonists they present to us and so on) other than taking place in the past and in a highly conservative environment - two points which many other gay themed movies out there also share.
I think there have been plenty of gay movies before and there would have continued to be plenty of gay movies even if Brokeback Mountain had tanked in the boxoffice department (which it had no chance of doing, what with the publicity, the level of curiosity that the line 'the gay cowboys' evoked, the prestige that Ang Lee brought with him to the project and the sheer attraction factor of the lead actors).
I also think that movie studios might be more prone to gamble on a gay movie succeeding in both critical and financial terms and it doesn't have to do with a specific concept. I think that same new openness is what brought us Milk as a big budget production with a famous director, a huge cast of (handsome young) stars and a good chance at the Oscars before it was even released - - and Milk couldn't be more different from Brokeback Mountain.
I do think this project was not aiming nearly as high and was probably far more driven by the wish to get this story out there than a thought that it could succeed as much as BBM did. The ultimate proof? The way it's being released. First through festivals, then through limited release and then it goes to DVD, where it will probably succeed the most.
By the way, I also thought I'd never see this movie filmed, but it was mainly because I had no idea how they could transfer the last part, which deals with ghosts, trauma, haunting memories, surreal existence, the splitting and merger of time and people, etc. I feel the movie captured only a part of this complex ending, so I don't think I was quite so wrong in assuming it was a very difficult task, taking this book on.
"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"
reply
share