This IS exciting! I'm heading to the good magazine store tomorrow & puttin' it on the banner now. Thanks so much, Scott. :)
I bought mine today. So far I'm reading the third aritcle of eight, and tell you what, it has nothing on BetterMost in the analysis department. I haven't learned much new yet. A couple of neat aspects I will quote and post about later.
Oh, please do! I want to know if it's worth getting my wallet open for this issue. they charge 20 dollars for oversees shipping!
any good pictures?
Fabienne - Rather than pay for the shipping why not let me (or someone) get one for you and you can take it home with you from Alberta? Just say some little word about this and I'll order another one.
I just ordered mine last night. I misread what I saw on the website a few days ago and thought that each issue was $40.00 instead of $10.00. The $40.00 was for a year's subscription.
Howdy, gang--
I've had a chance to peruse this issue more fully, and I was struck by an apparent omission of possibly up to six pages of text in the special section devoted to Brokeback Mountain! I've not yet had occasion to seek out any other copies for comparison, but it does look like these pages were omitted from the printing altogether and were not, say, torn out of this particular copy by some avid reader.
Firstly, Ara Osterweil's article 'Ang Lee's Lonesome Cowboys' (the fifth item in the special section) begins on page 38, and continues onto page 40, which is faced by an unnumbered page containing an ad pertaining to reprints and copyright permission regarding University of California Press materials. On the verso of this advertisement page, the page is numbered 44, and here begins B. Ruby Rich's article 'Brokering Brokeback: Jokes, Backlashes, and Other Anxieties'! What happened to pages 41 through 43, and the assumed ending of Osterweil's piece?
There is a second similar incongruency with D.A. Miller's article 'On the Universality of Brokeback Mountain' (the seventh item in the special section), which begins on page 50, and is cut off in media res on page 58, which is faced by an unnumbered page containing an ad for the University of Texas Press. On the verso of this advertisement page, we see the beginning of of Joshua Clover and Christopher Nealon's article 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Me', which begins on page 62!
Just a heads up for anyone thinking of purchasing their own copy of this issue. You might want to check for these anomalies first before investing in the product.
Bryan tells me (over the phone, this morning) that the same problem exists with copies on Toronto bookshelves. Guess we need to complain to the publishers(?)
I can confirm that, I just bought my copy, which was sealed, and the pages mentioned are indeed missing! What a bummer, I really had to search to find a copy. I guess I'll have to get my money back from Indigo, pronto!
Edit: Damn, I don't have the receipt so I may have trouble getting a refund.
Could someone who has the missing pages scan and post them, I'd really appreciate it.
No can scan, but LOVE your avatar, oilgun. :)
I did send an email to the magazine asking if they would make the pages available online but I haven't heard back.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.
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
Gets real borin real fast - pretty much a wasted 10$, if ya ask me!
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.
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.Nevertheless, would somebody mind bringing a copy to the BBQ? I went to all four of the biggest bookstores in Denver and wasn't able to obtain it. Thanks!
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
I can confirm that, I just bought my copy, which was sealed, and the pages mentioned are indeed missing! What a bummer, I really had to search to find a copy. I guess I'll have to get my money back from Indigo, pronto!
Edit: Damn, I don't have the receipt so I may have trouble getting a refund.
Could someone who has the missing pages scan and post them, I'd really appreciate it.
I recently had the chance to read this thanks to Ellemeno who brought me a copy at the BBQ (thank you so much, Clarissa!) and I found the articles thought-provoking but also sometimes maddening, puzzling, and upsetting. I would like to discuss them if anyone's interested.Although Jack Schilling (brokeback_1) feels that this magazine gives Brokeback Mountain official canonical status, I recall with distaste that a couple of the articles were "just plain crap"...Joshua Clover and Christopher Nealon comparing BBM to a Madonna video and "Marlboro" type cowboys. Statements by D.A. Miller that "erotic disappointment may well be the only genuine homosexual response to BBM --and hence the only genuine basis for a political crticque of the film." BULL. These articles are an academic sop to the members of the Academy who got properly nipped by the Dave Cullen site ad in Variety last year.
The article that was the most disturbing to me was the one that described the industry that was created to cater to older women wanting subject matter about gay men...that was pretty disgusting!!
Think of all we've written here analyzing the subtexts and symbols and mirrors and bookends, etc., that FQ didn't really touch on. They should have gotten one of us to write something!We Brokies are surely creating one of the most extensive and insightful exegeses of any film ever. This one site alone provides a powerful antithesis to much of the shallow pap found in that issue of Film Quarterly, and other culturally/economically sanctioned critical fora.
I have often puzzled over the appeal of this film and this story to straight women, regardless of age (beyond the obvious points that Brokeback Mountain is an astonishing feat of cinematic art and of short-story writing). ???
I have to admit, and no offense intended, I have often puzzled over the appeal of this film and this story to straight women, regardless of age (beyond the obvious points that Brokeback Mountain is an astonishing feat of cinematic art and of short-story writing). ???
If you're talking about the erotic aspects as apart from all the other great qualities, I think you can chalk that up as one of the many mysteries of human sexuality. One look at the fanfic forum tells you there are a lot of straight women who find the situation appealing.
I myself am not a big frequenter of the fanfic forum, but I can tell you that it's very compelling to see people of any gender combination expressing love and passion as authentically and movingly as Jack and Ennis do. That in this case they happen to be played by two hot actors doesn't hurt, either. ;)
I've wondered, too, if in trying to understand I was over-thinking or over-analyzing, and if it isn't simply the flip side of the stereotypical straight male fascination with "girl-on-girl action." Haven't wanted to go there, though, because it seemed, well, stereotypical, condescending, and possibly even insulting to women. :-\
I was a bit confused by your equation, but then I assumed that there is an implied "Watching" before "Attractive," and then it made sense. Is that correct?
It would be interesting if others could weigh in on this, though. I suspect, as with so many things in life, there is no one monolithic explanation that covers everyone.
I agree. I'd like to hear directly from the straight women who generally like watching men together (for me, it doesn't extend -- or at least hasn't extended -- much beyond the movie) and the straight men who like watching women together. I know we've got plenty of people around here in the first group, but ... ???
I've wondered whether any straight women "identify" with either Ennis or Jack particularly in TS2.
I certainly know the answer to that question for one gay man. ... ::)
My biggest objection was that the articles focused too much on the film as a political and cultural breakthrough and not enough about the film's artistry. Not that the political/cultural stuff isn't important, but it's only one piece of what makes BBM a masterpiece.
Think of all we've written here analyzing the subtexts and symbols and mirrors and bookends, etc., that FQ didn't really touch on. They should have gotten one of us to write something!