Since when should critics care what people think? Hell, it's their opinion. If readers want to construe what critics say into a conspiracy theory ploy to bash all the gays, then so be it.

I'll be the one to say that no matter how "hot" or talented Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are, most sane people shouldn't take enjoyment in watching a film about gay cowbays making love. Sorry, that's just... Gah!

I am not pro-gay in the least, nor am I anti-gay. I really don't care. But don't shove it in my face and tell me I have to like it.

Hey Andrew,

I see where you're coming from... but to be fair... no one had "shoved it in our faces". We can choose to go see it or not go see it.

Cheers!

Brokeback Mountain's greatness is being convincing and that's practically the key to success for any film, although I would give the movie third place among the nominees. Seymour Hoffman is a superior actor to Russell Crow, mainly in Capote.
I suggest not to divide the world into straights and gays, but for argument's sake, into males taller than 5' 9" or shorter than 5' 9"; (For females: 5' 4").
If the question would be: "Anti-gay agenda?", I wouldn't pay attention to it? I am just interested in great movies, as well as in smart reviews.
Ted Fichman

I'm with you. To me, a good movie is a good movie, no matter the content.

While I have no desire to see "Brokeback Mountain" (and it has nothing to do with the theme of the film. It has everything to do with the hype.), I can't help but wonder if this movie was about two straight cowboys beating up on a gay man, would it be getting the praise that it's getting? (NOTE: I'm not saying that I condone violent acts against anyone, I'm just making a point.)

I think you nailed it on the head when you said that it's getting a lot of praise in fear of the "homophobe" label.

Personally I thought there was an anti-Fantastic Four agenda. It didn't even get a single nomination! One of the most underrated movies ever!

You don't help your argument by lumping in 'Transamerica' with the other films. I haven't seen it, but I understand that it's about a transsexual. That, as I'm sure you're aware, is quite different than gay.

I look forward to the day when your question doesn't need to be raised. As, I'm sure, do other straight people, gay people, Mexican, Italian, short, skinny, fat, left wing or right wing people.

Hey Darren,

I too look forward to when such questions don't need to be asked (on either side)

As for your understanding of the term "transexual"... I don't mean to sound like I'm generalizing, but being gay is generally one of the driving factors behind someone wishing to become the opposite sex. (yeah... like I'm some sort of expert on the subject).

Cheers!

Pro-gay agenda? Where do you come up with this stuff? The fact that you even made that kind of connection between a few of the award winners shows your bigotry. Truman Capote was gay but you barely know it from the film. And there were plenty of non-gay performances that won awards as well.

Have you even seen Capote, Brokeback Mountain or Transamerica?

Hey Borick.

As far as the films I've seen. Yes, yes and yes.

As far as your comment about bigotry... you just proved my point. Thank you.

was there a heterosexual agenda for the past 150 years of the Golden Globes?

3 of the 5 big categories were won by Brokeback Mountain. maybe folks just thought it was a good film. and as you said, Hoffman's was deserved. so that explains 4 of the 5 big wins. i don't seriously think all the voters had a talk where they said to vote for "the gays" this year.

I understand. But at the same time, I don't understand. I'm confused. But not in a gay cowboy way. Oh no.

As for your understanding of the term "transexual"... I don't mean to sound like I'm generalizing, but being gay is generally one of the driving factors behind someone wishing to become the opposite sex.

that's actually quite incorrect. transexuals are people who feel they they were born with the wrong sex. it's got nothing to do with wanting to sleep with people of the same sex (and why would you get your body to go through some drastic changes just to sleep with someone of the same sex? seems a bit harsh).

john, your question brings to mind another point those in the GLBT community sometimes have: the blatant heterosexism. try thinking of the situation in reverse: how many gazillion awards/award shows have only been bestowed on films with heterosexual themes/love interests? in the history of cinema, probably 99.9%. and why? because "straight" is the majority. (case in point, notice the wedding ring on Josh Lucas' hand featured subtly yet prominently on the key art and billboards for "GLORY ROAD". may be a small thing to you if you're straight because you never have to think about it and most, if not all, movies speak to you... but to many "on the fringe", the reality is Disney is quietly, subconsciously, reaffirming to America that this man, and this movie, has family values.) this is not over-reaching; those kinds of discussion do take place at the studio level.

so just because there was an abundance of gays/gay themes in films this year - and most all of them happened to be films of quality and substance - it shouldn't be considered payback or the forwarding of some gay agenda. this year the HFPA seemed to take a minority stance instead of a majority one. and more power to them! or maybe the perfs in gay-themed films were just better or resonated stronger with more open-minded foreign countries. who can say?

I think award shows definately have agendas although I don't think this is the case. I don't consider the role of Phillip seymour hoffman a gay role. The movie isn't about him being gay. I do feel there is an agenda of the awards to push liberalism on to society. I'm not saying extreme leftist ideas but slowly trying to slip them in. If you look at movies in the past that have won they are all movies that show leftist look. Movies are rarely shown equally from both sides. I also believe that award shows are now trying to make up for the fact that they used to be more close minded. Giving denzel the award a few years ago for a less than good perforance and jaime foxx for a role that should have gone to (not to kiss john's ass) Tom Cruise or any of the actors nominated. Once again no matter how overrated brokeback mountain was and it was overrated Heath Ledger deserved the award.

Which point did I help prove? That you like to ask the hard questions?? Yes, calling Fahrenheit 9/11 a good movie is so outspoken of you.

Whatever, I'm sure this little rant was just designed to increase your google ad sense ratings or however that works.

Hey Borick,

No, the point you proved is that a lot of people lack the maturity to deal with different opinions than their own. I said something that you didn't agree with... so you threw out a "bigotry" label. Yeah, very mature of you.

And now you throw out more labels and insults like "Whatever, I'm sure this little rant was just designed to increase your google ad sense ratings or however that works."

Once again, if you can't have a civilized discussion with other people exchanging points of view and differing opinions without resorting to your bully, insult and label mentality, then go read AICN or something.

Brokeback Mountain was as good as all of the other movies nominated for Best Drama, and the critical reception for all of them were about even so, as far as I'm concerned, there's no meat to your argument besides the fact that Brokeback won some stuff.

There's nothing mysterious or "pro-gay" about it--really isn't this the sort of hard luck story with the suitably tragic ending that goes well at these awards shows? It's not like the film was directed by Von Trier and filmed backwards or something especially avante garde.

"I'll be the one to say that no matter how "hot" or talented Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are, most sane people shouldn't take enjoyment in watching a film about gay cowbays making love. Sorry, that's just... Gah!" - Andrew

That's some brilliant reasoning right there. Your insight...it's blinding me, man. Blinding.

John,

Borick is the same kind of person that argues with you when you say film is subjective. Any opinion different than his is outrageous, and any opinion the same as his requires him to play devil's advocate.

Hey there Arethusa,

Please be careful dude.... when you say "there's no meat to your argument"

Read my post carefully... I DON'T have an argument. I'm just asking the question (even though I already personally think the answer is no)... and I think it's at least fair to ask.

Cheers!

i'm only saying that it seems like you throw out these ridiculously ignorant comments just so you can spark arguments on here. Then when someone calls you on it you say "hey, I'm only asking the question, don't get mad at me".

maybe bigotry is a strong word but come on man... pro-gay political agenda? please

I concur with the post.

The only award I agreed with is John Williams.

Brokeback Mountain is a sure move: it´s quite unoffensive. Come on, making a movie about gay cowbies is not that a great risk. Movies that raise more difficult questions were completedly ignored. I think of A History of Violence and, of course, Munich.

Munich has the courage to raise a very complicated topic in a very complicated time, and taking no side at all. And, of course, it´s an excellent entertainment.

These prizes are held by a community of journalists. Excuse me, but these guys have no credit. At least, the Oscars jury is composed by proffesionals.

Anyway, the Oscars in this current year will be so boring and predictable... more than usual, and that´s much to say.

(Today I am sober) ;)

It doesn't make me think twice personally. It just so happens that by coincidence some of the top films last year contained plots surrounding sexuality that are non-mainstream. The over-hyping of Brokeback was a little excessive, I personally wouldn't have it at number 1 of my list for 2005 but I think it deserves its award nonetheless. As for Best Female, it was a pretty poor year for actresses, but Huffman was the better of the year. Best actor is a tough one, I really like both performances and if I had to choose one I would leave it up to the flip of a coin as I just couldn't make the decision. Brokeback’s awards are fair enough, it’s not my personal winner of this year but it’s not as if it was utter shite and shouldn't have won anything.

I think the whole agenda question though is highly subjective, if a film about a dancing horse won best drama next year wouldn't there be people asking whether the globes had a pro dancing horse agenda instead?

Anyway, at the end of the day it’s nice to see someone putting their neck out on the line all for the simple discussion of films, good work John :).

"Please be careful dude.... when you say "there's no meat to your argument"

Read my post carefully... I DON'T have an argument. I'm just asking the question (even though I already personally think the answer is no)... and I think it's at least fair to ask." - John

There was no meat to your question. I suppose it's "fair to ask" because a) it was a film depicting gay love and b) it won some awards and c) it's a free country but if THAT'S all then it's fluff from the word go. As others have noted it was a predictable choice: typical, albeit well-done, Oscar bait.

In other words, if this is a "hard question" then I'm a "dude". : )

Hey Arethusa,

No, it was a fair question because (as I stated in the post itself), had Brokeback, Capote and Transamerica not won a thing at the awards last night, 1000's of sites (including this one) would have asked the opposite question (you KNOW they would have).

So, since they pretty much swept, it was (in my opinion) at least fair the throw the question out there to allow people to comment on.

And you're not a "dude"? (opps!) sorry about that, my bad for assuming.

Hey Borick,

There you go again:

"you throw out these ridiculously ignorant comments"

I asked the question, as I said in my post, becuase had Brokeback, Capote and Transamerica not won a thing at the awards last night, 1000's of sites (including this one) would have asked the opposite question (you KNOW they would have). So since the opposite happened, then it's only fair (in my opinon) to ask the opposite question and allow people to comment on it.

If you think the answer to the question is "no" (as I do), then just say so, then say WHY you think it. It's really not hard to answer a question without insluting people and putting labels on them just because you don't like the question.

Believe it or not... there are people out there who have a different opinion on this topic than you and I do.. and their opinions deserve respect even if we disagree with them.

But hey... that's just my world view.

It doesn't matter if there was a pro-gay agenda awards shows are bullshit anyway. It is ludacris to compare movies and claim one is the best. Movies are made from all different angles for very different effects. It is insane to loop them all together and judge.
The best movie of the year is fun with dick and jane. It did exactly what it was suppose to do, make me laugh until I cuoldn't breath. I left happy and satisfied. What more could you ask for?

Anything that offends the Christian Right in the US is fine by me.

Felicity Huffman shouldn't have won. I don't consider that acting because I'm pretty sure she actually is a man posing as a woman in real life.

John, Have you seen Capote?

I thought that he was much better then Crowe and also...

I thought that Capote was the best film of the year hands down.

I mean, it is a much better film then Brokeback Mounain.

This is the same deal is the year when Halle Berry and Denzel won the major acting awards. Did they win because they were black or because they simply gave the best performance. I tend to think the latter and I'll say the same about this year's picks and winners.

Plus, another thing to take in to account is society and culture. Films generally reflect what is happening in society. Iraq, free speech, privacy, patriotism and homosexuality are all prominent themes in social life over the last 2 to 3 years.

Thanks for asking the hard questions, John. I mean, if you didn't, who would?

I had to laugh at that opening paragraph. It's so self-serving, ego-centric and self-congratulatory, it really serves zero purpose in establishing the content of the post. Come on John, spare us. Just had to call you on that one. After all, I am a member of the North South Central Ego-check Squad.

That said, I don't know that there was a pro-gay agenda. I do know that any film tackled with skill that addresses the "hard truth" of being gay is going to get nominated. Combined with the hype machine on Brokeback, this film is a shoe-in for 2005 Oscar Best Picture.

Actually charkhammis... the first paragraph was put there as an attempt to deflect morons from plastering me with homophobic labels or other nonsense... becuase that IS what happens to me on a constant basis doing this site.

But I guess if you can't insult me for one thing... you'll find a way to insult me for something else.

"Hey Arethusa,

No, it was a fair question because (as I stated in the post itself), had Brokeback, Capote and Transamerica not won a thing at the awards last night, 1000's of sites (including this one) would have asked the opposite question (you KNOW they would have).

So, since they pretty much swept, it was (in my opinion) at least fair the throw the question out there to allow people to comment on."

Hey, simply because there's a lot of people out there with fluffy questions who would wish to stir up an empty contrtoversy in an effort to make conversation doesn't mean you have to take part. Rise above. :)

Sure they swept it--they were the movies slated to sweep it and the ones that had the most Oscar buzz. As in any other year. These are the kind of hard luck films that appeal to the critics and hollywood professionals. Gays today, biopics yesterday, mentally challenged tomorrow. Pre-tty predictable. Not much to talk about.

"And you're not a "dude"? (opps!) sorry about that, my bad for assuming."

I'm not, indeed! Here I thought "Arethusa" was pretty girly.

Hey charkhammis, you really take yourself much too seriously. There IS a pro-gay agenda in Hollywood and it is placed under the "tolerance to alternative lifestyles" umbrella. Personally, gays don't bug me, I just don't care to have the rules changed just because they want them changed.

Hey John, regarding Farenheit 911:
In order for a film to be a 'documentary', all apects of the film must be factually correct, right?. Moore included some nonsense of his own much of which was later proved incorrect by the 911 commission. A "great" documentary? More like great propaganda.

Peace.

I'm not going to make any accusations towards this or any other year, but if anyone thinks Hollywood (including the foreign press) doesn't have a left-wing agenda or at least left-wing messages that they want to put out there, you're delusional.

It's so painfully obvious. Can anyone name one film from mainstream Hollywood in the past 10 years where a republican is shown in a positive light, while a democrat is shown in a negative one. If you can, I'll give you ten opposite examples for each one you can - this includes television.

Gay agenda? Probably not. I mean, I found Brokeback to be pretty damn boring, but it was EXTREMLY well directed and acted, so a best picture award isn't out of the question. I wouldn't have chosen it, but hey, whatever.

OK, let the hatemail fly in!

-Drewbacca
moviepatron.com

I was most surprised (well, not surprised as much as chagrinned) at the almost complete lack of recognition during the awards that "Brokeback Mountain" was a film that dealt with gay themes. My favorite part was when the film was referred to as one that dealt with "a complicated love", which sounded to me like the new millennium version of saying "the love that dare not speak its name." Oddly enough, the thing that surprised me most was the clip shown for the film that almost, just almost, showed Heath and Jake going in for an embrace. It was the closest to acknowledging the nature of their relationship that I had seen throughout the whole publicity campaign for the movie. The TV ads that had been shown recently focusing on girls and babies were kind of sickening. I understand the difficulty in trying to market a movie that deals with gay issues to both heterosexual and homosexual audiences, but Focus (and the Hollywood community) seems to have taken the position that we shouldn't be focusing on the homosexuality in this film. If that's in the interest of promoting the idea that homosexual love is no different nor less valid than heterosexual love, then great, that's fantastic. But something tells me it has much more to do with marketing than social progress.

John-

Don't get all martyr-like. I'm not insulting you- I'm insulting the first two and last line of that paragraph. I'm just saying the paragraph cracked me up for the obvious reasons. I think you defended yourself pretty well in the following: "Now, keep in mind I don't think there was at all." The whole "I'm a guy who asks the hard questions and isn't afraid to voice his opinion." was a bit over the top I thought. I mean, who IS afraid to voice their opinion on the internet?

But who am I to get you all worked up? You own a website that's hugely subjective and allows people to post to it. I just don't understand why someone critiquing a statement in the same way you critique other other aspects of film is a big deal. You've got a good blog that I visit daily. You're clever in the way you propose questions to illicit debate. Subsequently, I enjoy the debate, but c'mon-- thicken up the skin a little.

And JAGMIR-

What the puke are you talking about?

All my love and snark--

Chark Hammis
Official Member NSCES

Man, arethusa made a really good point about how awards are predictable. I have an idea, i'm gonna go make a movie about a mentally challenged, partially insane, one armed, gay black boxer in 1965 who was physically abused by his father when he was a kid. he then befriends a washed up old boxer who helps him win the world championship. That should get more than 11 oscars.

Hey Chark, since you're insulting and not insulting at the same time, I applaud John for asking the question: "Was there a pro-gay political agenda...". The question is almost rhetorical, but in this day of PC-ness, just asking usually labels you a 'homophobe'. I say more power to John for not backing into some corner and biting his tongue on this.

Drewbacca hit it on the nose: "IT'S SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS..." Hey man, let us vent.

Peace.

First things first.

"Anything that offends the Christian Right in the US is fine by me" -Harrid.

I don't think for one moment that the awards were a slam on the religious right. Let's look at the other big winner at the Globes: Walk The Line....which John surprisingly doesn't mention in any of his responses or initial post. While Cash's early start was filled with addictions to alchohol and drugs, he later sobered up and got clean. He also rededicated his life to God.

"You're producing the wrong man here, because gospel music is part of what I am and part of what I do," Cash replied to ABC in 1969 when they tried to censor him on his variety show . "If you don't like it, you can always edit it."

In an interview with Rolling Stone in 2000, he said, "I believe what I say, but that don't necessarily make me right. There's nothing hypocritical about it. There is a spiritual side to me that goes real deep, but I confess right up front that I'm the biggest sinner of them all."

Most of Cash's songs were of sin and troubles- but they also dealt with redemption and/or consequences. Cash himself considered being an evangelist at one time...

Second, having reminded everyone of that film and its spoils, (even Pheonix didn't think he'd win- he lost a side bet to Ryan Phillippe) how can I, or anyone, say that there was a one sided 'agenda' by the Golden Globes?

By the way, 'the world', says the good book, ' honors its own'. and God will 'honor his'.

-Sealer audi.

I have a female friend who's pretty pro homosexual ( for lack of a better phrase ) and i talked to her about it, considering her an expert in the field, and she said it wasn't all that good. That it had poor direction and no chemestry between the leading actors.

I dont listen to others, but i doubt seriously that a movie that i've heard 10 people pursuading me not to see could clean up like it did at the globes... there was definitely an agenda. but it wasnt just a pro homosexual agenda.

did you notice the Constant Gardener being spoken about by none other than activist poster boy Tim (timminy tim tim terru) Robbins?

When Russel Crowe didnt recieve the best actor award, i have next to no belief that the most worthy winners in any category succeeded.

EXCEPT that Hugh Loire (sp) for house and Gena Davis ( rowl ) won, i have doubts i'll take these winners at face value.

What did you expect, John? It's the golden Globes...

has Denzel Washington ever won one? Chris Tucker has i believe.
That should tell you all you need to know.

John, I think you're comments are worthwhile and in the right direction, but not exactly on point.

But it surely is something to be considered, as a film like Brokeback Mountain is going to garner more critical praise and awards due to it's nature, and that is a film that "defies" genre, and the film is essentially a revisionist western. Of course, that's the easy way out, as it's much easier (and safer) as a member of the media/critical public to label Lee a genius for being able to make a western that is inherintly anti-western.

This all being said, I haven't even seen the film. But that's aside from the point. The point here is that anti-gay or pro-gay, it doesn't matter, John brings up a point that runs deep in the world of criticism and awards, and that is how these people come to these results. And that is, generally, fear.

The Golden Globes pro-gay? I don't think so. Anti-gay? I don't think so. What I think is that they, like any good politician, chose the "safest" way out -- and that was to award a "liberal" genre-breaking film from a notable director the main awards.

Of course this is all terribly subjective, which is why it's almost fleeting even arguing -- but I see it almost the way I saw the 2001 Academy Awards. Denzel Washington and Halle Berry both won their respective best actor/actress awards. Not saying they didn't deserve it (both gave terrific performances), but I can bet you members of the Academy got together when deciding and though "think about the press we'll get if two African-American actors" win both awards? It'll be groundbreaking!" Whether they gave the best performances or not, I see both as a generally basic PR move on the part of both award shows.

Sorry for the long winded post guys.

Cheers.

It is the GOLDEN GLOBES people...Awards by folks who are more star-struck and eager to please than any other group in any way connected to show biz.

I still fail to understand why these awards have any weight or meaning...The Hollywood Foreign Press are only a very, very small step above E! or Entertainment tonite, or People Magazine...Hardly what I would consider an authority on anything...

Brokeback Mountain is the type of doomed love story which typically is in the running for awards...just has a two guys instead of a guy and a girl...no big deal folks. Move Along...

All that aside, Ang Lee is a fantastic Director, and if you are unable or unwilling to see Brokeback Mountain, then at least run down to the local video store and pick up his absolute masterpiece, "THE ICE STORM"

i think the people who want to offend the christian right just because they have a certain point have serious issues with themselves. And though i'm conservative, and probably sicken alot of you with my opinion, i, like john, like to speak up.

triffic has a point, about why such films garner such cred, while good films get lost in the shuffle. But this year it was just soooo teeth grindingly sickening that i was just WISHING something would be said on this site. there were many times through the proceedings that i actually said "Ohhh man John is gonna chew em up and spit em out tomorrow..."

This is a similar to the questions raised at the 2001 Oscars.

Denzel Washington won Best Actor. Halle Berry won Best Actress. Sidney Poitier got the Lifetime Achievement Award.

But was there a pro-African American agenda that year, or was it just a coincidence that two of the three major awards went to people who really didn't necesserily deserve them for the performances they gave?

Does asking that question automatically make me a racist just like asking this question seems to automatically make John homophobic as some people seem to be inferring?

So we arrive here at the same issue. Did the awards go to whoever *really* deserved them, or to who would press the right buttons with the right demographs for whatever reason that year, safe that under the shadow of currently being over-praised that nobody would dare question it.

As John said, nobody will ever really know the truth, but the questions need to be asked.

I haven't seen Brokeback for the same reason I haven't seen as many movies this year as in past years... 10 bucks to sit near strangers who won't shut up, wastes my money. That aside, not caring if people regard something as contriversial, Brokeback sounds boring. It's a gay romance or a gay cowboy movie. Subtract the word "gay" and you end up with a romance or a cowboy movie... two genres that just don't excite me that much anymore. Besides, Ang Lee still owes me $8 for Hulk.

# Movies are made to make money. Usually attained by getting people to go and watch them or buy them on DVD.

Recipe for making movies:
Option 1: Set the movie in an exotic location with hot as actors/actresses

Option 2: Have a genuinely good script that is well directed and tastefully produced

Option 3: Use the most controversial subject you are able to get past the censors and create(using loads of cash) unbelievably hype

Option 4: Spend big bucks on explosions, special effects and limit the dialogue to one syllables

Option 5(and also my personal favourite): Build your own highway , have a 17 minute car chase and destroy 300 cadillac's

Then have the golden globes/oscars/other award thingeys. Put five numbers in a hat. Whichever option wins(see above for options) are then deemed the winners.

NOTE: Judging can be affected by cash, politics and pimples.

ok, so i was once again so far from the topic i got a nosebleed, what i meant to post was....

No.

Hey Stuart, I think this is different than the 2001 Oscars.

The connections between Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and Sidney Poitier as African-American actors is obvious and literal. The fact that Training Day was even mentioned anywhere during the Oscars was a complete joke.

On the other hand, the connection between Brokeback Mountain, Capote and Transamerica as being movies about gay characters is superficial if not non-existent. There's a difference between implying certain actors won awards because it was "their time" as opposed to certain movies being praised simply because of the main characters in the movies.

*Sorry for my english, i'm frensh, and i'll try to write the best i can*

Well, We had to wait till today in France to be able to see the movie.
And I saw it.

I agree with you: we can not but ask the "question" you asked...
but... I think the film about Capote has nothing to do with a "gay movie"... just the fact that he's gay...

And TRANSamerica is a movie about a "transexual" NOT a "gay" and i guess these 2 words are as different as "gay" and "straight" are, because a transexual man identify himself to a woman, and consider himself as straight.

As I said, it's maybe logical to ask this question, but it's as logical as to ask if there was a pro-black politic in the oscars when Denzel Washington and Halle Berrie win 2 oscars, who both deserved the oscar without a doubt.
Maybe we should stop to analyse everything, and try to take things simply... Brokeback Mountain won best picture, because they really found it good.
Felicity Huffman in Transamerica is excellent... If I didnt know her, i'm sure i would have thinked that she's a real man.... And Hoffman... what a great performance he did... Maybe they both win because, they really deserve to win.
It's not us who decide who 'll win what... So it's normal to agree or to disagree.

About Brokeback Mountain, i saw it.... and it's a very good movie...

Sorry again for my english...
salut

David, that's not entirely true either. Transexuality isn't about who the person wants to have sex with or be with. It's about what sex they feel they should be. There are male-to-female transexuals that have relationships with women and male-to-female transexuals that have relationships with men. Similarly, there are female-to-male transexuals that have relationships with either gender. You guys should see the documentary called "The Middle Sex." It was on HBO On Demand recently.

Also, for the people who complain about movies being liberal-leaning, what do you expect? A movie that shows homophobia in a positive light? A movie that shows racism in a positive light? A movie showing millionaires in their mansions being given out more handouts by the government? Art isn't about "liberal" or "conservative," nor should you base all your personal beliefs based on a "side" you choose. Art is about expressing some kind of truth about humanity in a way that affects people and I think Ang Lee was trying to create art with Brokeback (rather than making a movie purely for entertainment value). He didn't choose to make Brokeback for some "liberal" agenda, he chose it because he wanted to show a truth between two men. Plus, in the past hundred years that movies have been made, how many heterosexual romances have been made? How many heterosexual romantic cowboy movies have been made? It's about time someone tried to make something a little different. There are gay couples in their 70's who've been together monogomously for decades and there hasn't been a single mainstream movie to tell their story (and no, just because there have been other movies with gay themes doesn't mean they're representative of every gay person's life and I also don't think very many of them have focused specifically on love).

Someone else pointed out that Brokeback was being marketed unfairly. I think that person missed the point of the movie, which was supposed to be a universal story about any difficult love (they could have easily been an interracial straight couple) and also released to a wide audience. Boring straight guys won't want to see a cowboy movie about love (no matter what kind of love that is), so it was definitely marketed more towards women in the mainstream market. I don't think they needed to show more scenes in the trailer to prove to people that this was a "gay movie" because that's not what the point of the movie is. And it would only get censors more annoyed about the trailer being shown on local stations and annoy the stupid people talking about the gayness being "shoved in their face" (would those same people be able to say the same thing about an interracial couple shown in a movie trailer without being ashamed of themselves?).

What I don't understand about all this is the contention that critics favorably reviewed these movies because of a fear of being labeled homophobic. Since when have film critics EVER cared about the public's perception of them? Never. Many films that have been critically acclaimed have been HATED by the public, and I think in a lot of those cases, the critics knew they would be. They just didn't care. In fact, some film critics are so deeply into the "love to be hated" mindset, that I believe it is MORE likely that they would favorably review a movie specifically BECAUSE they think the public reaction might be negative (if the film has enough actual merit that they can back up their opinions). Understand, I'm not saying that that is what happened, I think all the awards this year were very well deserved. I'm just saying that film critics don't mind, and often thrive on, people disagreeing with their opinions. That gives them the opportunity to sneer and say "Yeah, but what do you know? I'M the professional film critic." And the incredible reviews "Brokeback Mountain" received (I haven't read enough of the reviews to "Transamerica" or "Capote" to know if this applies to them as well or not) indicate that is was enjoyed by virtually ALL of them.

P.S.
John, I want you to know that I salute you for "asking the hard questions." It inspired me for the first time to express my own opinion on a forum like this, and I don't believe questioning ANYTHING is bad as long as you keep an open mind to the answers you receive. I believe you have done this, you have given everyone their chance to address your question, and have carefully considered what they had to say.
I, however, wonder if the question itself is a little flawed. You ask "Was there a pro-gay political agenda at the Golden Globes?" Then you lend that question credence by stating that "no less than two major film critics have admitted..... that a lot of critics praised it because of fear of being labeled homophobic if they didn't proclaim it as a wonderful film."
That doesn't really indicate to me a "political agenda" if it is true. Even if the praise given to this film did rise out of "an abundance of caution" on the part of the film critics (which, as I stated in my previous post, I do not believe), then that still would not seem to me to be exactly a "political agenda." That would seem to me more of a personal worry of those film critics. A "political agenda" seems more like a bunch of homosexual lobbyists somehow cajoling the critics into applauding the film. Like some secret organization of queers (I can say that, because I am one) exerting influence or force to ensure the victory of these films.
Conservative America is SO cautious of anything gay that is embraced by the mainstream. They can't understand that the American people is simply becoming more accepting of alternative lifestyles. This is an exaggerated comparison, but it in many ways seems like "The Red Scare, (thanks to Joseph McCartney)" in that it perceives a threat that is not actually there. To call this a "political agenda" seems like a way to validate your complaints, and make the American people believe that anyone who enjoyed this movie was brainwashed by well-dressed militant gays in a torture chamber with a Laura Ashley decor.
America is becoming increasingly accepting of the gay lifestyle. It is inevitable, and some people are afraid of it. They think that if someone that they perceive as "weird" is accepted by everyone else as normal, then that somehow detracts from their own normalcy. So they come up with all of these little plots and conspiracies to explain why other people can accept what they can't.
Please understand that I respect your bringing up this question, and I think you have treated everyone who has responded very well. I don't bellieve that YOU necessarily are looking for hidden explanations that aren't there, but I think this your comments are probably viewed by people who do.

It is silly to suggest that gays can turn a critic's review to positive because gays are "powerful". This is non-sense.

Gays are a tiny percent of the population....the non-gay crowd is the huge population with far more money, influence, cronies and clout. And in fact, the staunchly anti-gay crowd far outnumbers the actual gay population. Remember who is the minority here...and it is not beat-upon critics.

To say that the gay crowd can influence a critic is like saying that an elephant is afraid of an ant. Get real, gays did not influence the general opinion of Brokeback: the people and critics did.