I got expelled from school today for making a controversial film.

I'm afraid I must agree with that. But, maybe not for the same reasons as that fella.

See... Now that we all know this is a public school, and not private... This makes things really tough when it comes to legal action.

Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for that? Whether it be lawyers, or a settlement, or whatever other expenses are incurred? Well, if you don't already know, I'll clue you in. People like your parents. And every other homeowner in the town. The people in the administration, other than inconvenience, won't lose a single thing.

If you take legal action against the school, you taking money from your community. Not only that, but public schools all across the country are already hurting to give kids a good education. You making them waste more money is also going to jeopardize the education of your fellow students for years to come.


As was said before... You've won. Don't push it. The people you will hurt in the end are completely innocent. And really, they don't deserve to pay for the mistakes made by your school. Hell, if your disctrict is like what we have around here, they are already paying the price for the school administration's incompetence.



EDIT: Oh... And one more thing. It was YOU who decided to make a film that was intended to incite an uncomfortable reaction from people. It was YOU who decided to push the limits where the rules where laid down. (again, let's face it, if not for the shock factor of the homosexuality, what's the point of the film? I mean... Didn't you have any other ideas? Don't you have the capacity and talent of a filmmaker to not have to ride the coattails of a recent popular film? Because that's exactly what you did. I'd have a helluva lot more respect for you and this situation if Brokeback Mountain didn't exist. Frankly, I think this makes you a copycat and a hack.)

In other words... YOU started this ball rolling. This is where I've taken exception to this whole story right from the get-go. I really don't want to hear that you now intend to take legal action against the school (for all the reasons stated above) - when all things considered, YOU were the one that pulled this stunt!

 

Can Brandon, with a straight face, say that that is true? That the film would have worked without the characters being homosexuals? We already know the answer to that.

There was no story to tell if not for the fact that homosexuality was the underlying point. Furthermore, he would have never gotten the idea in the first place if it wasn't for Brokeback Mountain.

I'm just calling attention to the big elephant in the room. I wonder why no one else mentioned that point before...

See... This thread should have been started by saying, "I saw Brokeback Mountain, and it gave me a good idea for a film. I want to shock people like that... So, I wanted to produce it for a school project (even though I could simply produced it on my own...) They told me I couldn't have any sexual content. I said, 'screw them' because my copycat idea was so friggin good. They gave me a chance to show the film slightly edited. I said 'screw them' again, and showed the uncut version. Then I got in trouble for it. And now I'm going to make the PAY."

That's the way I'm seeing it right about now.

 

Eh, yeah, about the same here. Don't be confused, I think Brandon's a cool kid, but as I've said before in this thread, this is stupid.

 

Just to be fair:

As Brandon has said, it was created for school because the assignment was a story of tragedy. He didn't just come up the idea to make it and then find a tenuous way to associate it with a school project.

There is no "sexual content" in the film. There is also no nudity, technically.

 

Still, I think we're nearing the end of this, as now everybody knows the distinct difference between what we were told, and what was the case, and the sensationalism involved. Das end.

 

You make fan films.

Just, you know. As a note. Glass houses and all.

Also, as explained, he had just seen Brokeback Mountain, he was assigned a tragedy, and it was the first thing he thought of. He had about a week (maybe it was two, still) to make it for school, that's not enough time to wait for inspiration and originality to strike.

M. Scott

 

Right. "Sexual content" is a matter of perspective and a matter of opinion. Sensuality, by many people's deffinition can certainly fall within that area. And sensualuality between homosexuals, in a place where people are obvious uncomfortable with homosexuality, is a REALLY touchy area to be messing with.

If it did not, clearly there would be no problem.

You know... They weren't allowed to show couples kissing on TV until the 70's or so. It was considered sexual content. The deffinition evolves over time. Evidently, the homophobes of the world are not ready to see men snuggling without feeling that that's sexual.

 

No, I don't think there's any disputing the intention of this film was to make Brandon "edgy."

 

Which is referred to as "discrimination". And in a public high school, that's illegal.

And yet here we are, Fig. Disputing it. How odd.

I can agree that it's unlikely Brandon was unaware of the fact that this pushed the envelope, but you have no right to claim authority to the fact that it was his sole or primary motivation or intention.

M. Scott

 

You know... They weren't allowed to show couples kissing on TV until the 70's or so. It was considered sexual content. The deffinition evolves over time.

And that magically happened one day. All of a sudden, it was ok to show that on TV. No one made something that pushed the limits and tested the foundations of morality. Really. The date was September 17th, 1976, and it was raining.

 

I'm not saying it was it's sole intention. But among us thinking people, ignoring simple and unlikely exceptions of which there are many, we can all assume this was done with the intention to be edgy.

 

I think there's a difference between knowing something is going to be pushing the envelope (or "edgy"), and doing it with that intention. You can feel free to assume it was the latter, but don't keep stating it as though it is the inarguable truth, because it's not. Just your assumption.

M. Scott

 

The way I see it is that it doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong". He was told not to do it and he did it. End of story.

I know the fact that it was an issue to the school when some feel it shouldn't have been, but still that isn't the main issue, he was told not to do it. So he shouldn't have.

The wise thing to do would have been to debate the heck out of it with a teacher before the movie was shown. Maybe posting a thread about it asking what people think about the scene and how it could be debated so that it could be shown in class. Then everyone could have brought up their specific points as stated in this thread and he could have tossed them at his teacher during conversation.

That way he could have avoided any inconvenience that he brought upon himself saving me the irritation of seeing this thread on the first page knowing that it was potentially done to get attention for the movie.

Edit: But That doesn't take away from the other issues at hand.

And that's my thought.

 

Semantics. He knew it'd piss people off and cause a commotion, and did it.

 

Mike, please... With all due respect, you're quite wrong about this. I quote Brandon himself with saying, "without the snuggle scene, the film didn't work."

Isn't that another way of saying that without that edge, the film failed?

Let's see Brandon walk in here and tell us seriously that this was NOT intended to invoke the Brokeback Mountain discomfort. And I would LOVE to see him deny that he was being a copycat by making the film in the first place.

 

No. It's a very direct way of saying that without that scene, the film doesn't work. Because that scene is the culmination of the characters' relationship. Without the scene, the film's structure isn't solid. You're the one using the word edgy. Don't put it in Brandon's mouth.

Considering the name of the film is Brokeback High, your observation that it follows the Brokeback tradition is hardly revelatory. He never said anything otherwise.

M. Scott

 

Well, then exactly what are you arguing with? On one hand you say that you object to my accusation, then you basically say that I'm absolutely right on the exact same point.

And as far as your first point goes... Let's try to look at it this way. I'll use one of my own films as an example. Intervention. The film would not work (in my opinion) without the shocking language, and the way the film finally ends. And I make no bones about the fact that it was intended to make people uncomfortable. The subject matter is different. But the shock value I was going for is the same. There is NO WAY to deny these obvious points. There is no way I could ever convince anyone that the point of that film wasn't to make you take a step back and think.
And one other point about that. You said once before that inspiration doesn't come instantly, and he only had a week, and blablabla...

I wrote that film in one night. I got the inspiration in one shot from a film festival at NP2k. And not anything specific either... It was just a series of things that started a thought process that ended up as that film...

I don't want to hear that it's not possible to come up with a good idea without blatantly ripping off something that happens to be popular at the time.


Mike, I appreciate your feeling to defend this good friend of yours. But I would really like to see Brandon argue this with us for himself. He's got plenty of time to talk about it on his blog. He had enough time to start a thread here. He can take the time to directly answer me and the other folks that have had things to say.


And btw: I deserve no pedestal for any of the films I've done. I barely consider myself a filmmaker when compared to many other people. But, you asked me to speak as a filmmaker, and so I have.

 

That's not what he said.
Sometimes great, original ideas strike you in an instant; other times, they don't. When you're on a short deadline, you can't necessarily afford to wait and see.

 

That doesn't make horking a current popular idea okay either.

Face it folks, the inspiration that hit him was, "wow, this will be shocking!" And everything that happened afterward points to that being true.

 

I don't know what Brandon's motivation was -- maybe he'll tell us -- but I don't think the point of Brokeback Mountain is to be "edgy" and make people uncomfortable. I'd say the point is exactly the opposite. Movies like Brokeback Mountain are meant to make people comfortable with homosexuality, not uncomfortable. The point of Brokeback is that gay men are just like everyone else: they fall in love, they want to be together, and it's "tragic" when society keeps them apart. The flimmakers want people to think, "Yes, of course" or "I never looked at it that way before," not "Eewwww!"

That said, I think Brandon won, he's back in school and he's gotten some free pub, he should let the school and the district off the hook now. He'll just look like another litigation-happy jerk if he sues them now, and Durbn's point that even if he sues and wins he's taking money from his own community is a good one IMO.

 

That wasn't my entire point. That was only the first half. My second half is that this whole thing was pushed into motion by him in the first place.

And I would like to state for the record, that I DO NOT agree with the school's side of this at all. I am not uncomfortable with films the likes of Breakback Mountain even in the slightest.

But for anyone to deny that a film like that is making people uncomfortable is just plain silly. Shows like Will and Grace, or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, or Queer as Folk... THOSE shows are trying to show that gays are real people. THOSE shows are trying to show what the lifestyle is like and that it's not what the closed minded folks think of it. Brokeback Mountain was more about taking an OLD style institution like the cowboy, and showing that even THEY may be gay.

Brandon's movie was about the stereotypical jock who, on MOST circles can NEVER be gay, and actually made him gay. You tell me how that was not intended to be shocking and inflamatory. Sure, it fit the motif of his assignment. But he did it on the heals of a popular film.

 

No, it doesn't. You've only decided it's true, and are putting everything that happened afterward through that filter.

What you need to realize is that he made this originally for a SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT. You're acting as though he envisioned something to enter into film festivals and make a name for himself. Were that the case, then I would agree with you completely. He should have done something more original than just a Brokeback Mountain redux. But he made this for a class project. It wasn't supposed to be seen by more than 20 people ever in its lifetime, and it had to be made on a very short timeframe. I personally think that pretty much excuses that aspect of your argument.

And again, the idea of "cool, this will be shocking" was not his primary motivator. I talk to Brandon personally on a regular basis. Last I checked, durb, you do not. So between the two of us, I think I've got the better grasp on his motivations in making the project. The fact you need to face is, just because you can't think of any reason to make a gay-themed film besides the shock value doesn't mean none exists.

M. Scott

 

I didn't say "none exists". In fact I cited 3 cases where IT DOES exist.

In this case, considering everyhing that's been said about this situation from the get-go, I don't believe that Brandon's film falls into the complimentory category of the 3 things I cited. I believe that he purposely intended to incite an emotional reaction. And it worked.

 

You only named two, actually, as your distinction between Brokeback Mountain and Brandon's film was completely illusory. As you said:

I could argue that Brokeback Mountain was about the stereotypical cowboy who, in MOST circles can NEVER be gay, and actually made him gay.

Or, that Brandon's movie was more about taking an OLD style personality type like the jock, and showing that even THEY may be gay.

Either way, the distinction you made between the two is entirely invented.

M. Scott