Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > All Things Brokeback: Books, Interviews and More
Special BBM issue of 'Film Quarterly'
oilgun:
--- Quote from: Ellemeno on April 20, 2007, 02:36:19 am ---
No can scan, but LOVE your avatar, oilgun. :)
--- End quote ---
I love Heath-Smurf! Now that Spring is really here, I'll have to change it to a more season-appropriate Heath ;-)
A Follow-up to my magazine problem: I went back to the store and was able to exchange it without a problem. I was worried because there were only two copies of it when I first bought it but luckily the other copy was still there and it had all its pages.
I'll be able to sleep tonight, lol!
I have a scanner so I ccould post the missing pages if someone still needs them. I did send an email to the magazine asking if they would make the pages available online but I haven't heard back.
moremojo:
--- Quote from: oilgun on April 20, 2007, 06:29:47 pm ---I did send an email to the magazine asking if they would make the pages available online but I haven't heard back.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for doing this. They definitely should be made aware that some copies were improperly printed. Making the problematic pages available online would be one solution, as would printing them as addenda in a subsequent issue.
Oregondoggie:
Went directly to Powell's Bookstore here in Portland for my copy...but was HUGELY underwhelmed by the totality of the articles upon first read.
Postings and discussions here and on the Dave Cullen site over the past year seem to me to be far more insightful. Got a vague feeling of critical annoyance and patronization that Brokeback Mountain had become such a touchstone by the manner in which some of the articles were written. But, as I said, I read it in a rush and need to go back over it slowly. I hope I am proven wrong. But, if not, Film Quarterly needs to hear from us
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: Oregondoggie on April 20, 2007, 11:37:22 pm ---Went directly to Powell's Bookstore here in Portland for my copy...but was HUGELY underwhelmed by the totality of the articles upon first read.
Postings and discussions here and on the Dave Cullen site over the past year seem to me to be far more insightful. Got a vague feeling of critical annoyance and patronization that Brokeback Mountain had become such a touchstone by the manner in which some of the articles were written. But, as I said, I read it in a rush and need to go back over it slowly. I hope I am proven wrong. But, if not, Film Quarterly needs to hear from us
--- End quote ---
Totally agree - poorly written by professionals who ONLY write about so many films, they have trouble tellin em apart.
High felluttin talk about anythin 'cept the subtleties of our beloved movie. Gets real borin real fast - pretty much a wasted 10$, if ya ask me!
oilgun:
--- Quote from: Sheriff Roland on April 20, 2007, 11:46:31 pm --- Gets real borin real fast - pretty much a wasted 10$, if ya ask me!
--- End quote ---
I'm actually enjoying the issue quite a bit. It has some really interesting perspectives and opinions. Then again, Ruby Rich calls Nathan Lane Nathan LEE for some bizarre reason and another writer refers to Ennis and Jake instead of Jack. I guess proof-reading is a thing of the past, lol! Anyway this carelessness makes one question the validity of the rest of the piece but overall I think the issue makes for a good read.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version