So apparently Larry H. Miller -- owner of the Utah Jazz, a number of car lots, and the Gateway Plaza -- recently chose not to air Brokeback Mountain at any of his movie theaters. Let me repeat: he chose not to show a movie about gay cowboys at any of his movie theaters.
How attrocious! Is this man a member of the Taliban?!? Where's America going to if we can't watch gay love stories about cowboys?
Ridiculous. That's not censorship. This man owns these movie theaters and can show whatever he wants in them. Even if it was already on the marquis, he can cancel any movie he wants -- for whatever reason he wants. Especially if he finds a movie offensive. That doesn't make him bad. That makes him a moral person willing to take a stand.
Similarly, people are quick to call Wal-Mart a censor. That's bull crap. Are they fashion censors if they don't carry a line of clothing? Are they under moral obligation to carry every type of music? If you don't like the effect that Wal-Mart is having on the music industry then buy your music offline, or support 2nd-hand music stores. Wal-Mart doesn't owe you anything.
I think I have a different definition of censorship than other people. Mine is based on logic.
7 years ago
15 comments:
haha. I don't begrudge Larry H. Miller his right to exclude certain movies, nor Wal-Mart its right to exclude certain music. I just don't like them for it, and find it annoying that their exclusions are really based on marketing tactics rather than morals, for the most part.
Larry H. Miller will show graphically violent and sexual movies all the time. The only reason he chose not to show Brokeback Mountain, as far as I can tell (it does not even have any sex scenes, they're only implied) is because much of the population here would not like it, and wants to ignore all things gay-- all-together. We can watch movies where people rape and mame each other, jack off, kill, et cetera, but we can't watch a real life drama about what its like to be gay because we don't want to acknowledge its growing acceptence in our society. Yet these other atrocities are accepted?
For me, its not a censorship issue. Its just another case of bigotry, fear, power, and money. And its too bad.
actually...now that i think about it, bigotry, fear, power, and money... if these things control what gets said and what doesnt, isnt this censorship? granted, its not the sort protected by the constitution, and everyone has the right to his/her opinion and choices to include/exclude whatever, but by doing so, they are censoring, acknowledging, or condoning....like it or not.
As for Walmart, they just know their target market. why do you think they have a sweet little handicapped old man for a greeter? makes 'em seem small town....like decent "folk," when its just the really the sunny fascade of the richest corporation of bastards to ever twirk the trade deficit
check out the big box cartoon here: http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx
the real problem with Larry "Big Elbows" Miller's decision is that he made the decision to show the movie before he made the decision not to show the movie (unintended John Kerry reference).
What I mean is, he contracted to show the movie, and advertised that he would be airing it at his theater. It wasn't until the day of that he pulled the film, breeching the contract he had made with the film's distributors. Such a breech costs the distibutor big bucks in box office revenues, not to mention the annoyed movie-goers who expected to be able to see the film without driving 20 miles to the next nearest theater that is airing Brokeback. And Miller will get off scott free.
I'd like to see your average joe try this same tactic while purchasing a car. Sign the contract, take the car, then refuse to pay for it.
Bottom line is that if Larry H Miller had simply never slated the movie to begin with, this would be a non-issue, because it truly is his right to choose what to play in his theater. But once you sign a contract, it's a whole new ballgame. And censorship, as ugly a word as it is, begins to appear more and more to be the case.
indeed.
i have not seen it yet, but from what i've heard, Brokeback Mountain is hardly garbage. it is a human drama. it is not smutty. and trust me, ole larry's record here in town has very little to do with morals. thats been shown.
Let me add that the book was written by the Pulitzer prize winning author of The Shipping News, Annie Proulx. The movie based on this book was brilliant, as even Marci, Jared's sister, will tell you. It is hardly a case of "new garbage" being infused into the culture. In fact, I'd wager that its quite the contrary.
I once had a roommate who attended a private religious institution. I forget the specifics of the situation, I believe it had to do with a professor being reprimanded for having views that didn't quite toe the party line. Anyway, while I agreed that it was wrong for the institution to censure the professor, I still felt that they had every right to do it. So it goes here.
That said, it seems naive to assume Mr. Miller is doing this because of whatever his moral beliefs are--at least as naive as those crying censorship, and probably more so. Maybe his wife was "holding out" as long as he was planning on screening the film; perhaps his son just came out of the closet and it was knee-jerk spite that caused him to pull it; maybe he won (or lost, depending upon your point of view) a bet. The point is, his motivation is irrelevant. It is ultimately his movie theater, and he does have the right to show--or not--any movie he likes.
Now while Mr. Miller has display rights, I still don't think you can let him off the censorship hook. In his limited way, he's controlling the public's access to media. Fortunately, it's not that big a deal, because there are plenty of other venues for folks to see the multiple-Oscar nominee; or they could go to Mr. Miller's theater and see the less objectionable Big Momma's House 2. By owning a general-purpose movie theater, there is sort of an implied contract with the public that they will be able to see wide-release films at his theater. It's just sort of the nature of the business, like trying to gouge people for as much as possible when selling them cars.
But Jared's right; ultimately, it's Mr. Miller's theater to do with as he wishes, implied social contract or no.
Regarding Wal-Mart, I mentioned once on my blog that I was worried about them becoming a de facto censor. Yes, they have the right to sell whatever they wish, but when the corporation's size is growing so that it starts affecting access to material, that gets a little disconcerting. Right now, it's not a critical issue. I can--and do--buy my media products elsewhere, regardless of Wal-Mart's everyday low prices. There are still alternatives. What I fear is a future where what can be read, listened to, and watched is governed by suits in a boardroom.
Wow, neat:
The characters I had to type to publish my comment were "jalmc".
(JA)red (L)ee (MC)pherson.
Weird and wild. I can already see the letters for this particular post are not nearly as cool, though there are two letters "x".
excellent post, dan. i have been sitting here making art stuff all day and listening to music and going nutzo, so i checked the status of the issue and had a great read to help me de-escalate into normality again. tmi? well, i'm very wierd.weird.
I suppose I should state that I did, in fact, see this movie, and I liked it a lot. It's nice to see a touching love story. The fact that it happens to be two men instead of the traditional man and woman relationshiop is merely a sidenote in the story of their love. Of course, the rest of the world views it a little differently, and thus the plot has it's requisite drama.
And so, in turn, do we.
Oh, and yeah... definitely NOT garbage.
matt and dan, my friend alissa says "kick ass! great responses."
Firstly, I apologize for the final line of my blog where I suggested that everyone else's definition of censorship was illogical. (I'm surprised no one mentioned it, though I'm guessing that was the implication of Shasta's "haha".)
I was being cheeky with that, and I'm glad this post generated so many responses.
I agree with a lot of points which have been raised: such as Larry H. Miller's screening of Big Momma's House 2 and how that's not that moral. (But I think you can take that too far as well--for instance, you could say, "If Larry shows a movie that swears he must be a hypocrite".) So essentially I don't think his drawing a line in the sand here and not in other cases is NECESSARILY evidence of hypocrasy.
Furthermore, I don't think Miller's actions were dictated by the views of the population. If he had just shown it, I don't think the population would have been disappointed in him: they probably would have figured, well it's a business...it's not like he's showing a XXX movie. I don't know, though. It may have been that being interviewed then put him on the spot and FORCED him to make that choice: i.e. Now that he's been questioned about it, he has to consider how he's going to come off in the public eye.
As for Wal-mart, it's easy to be cynical about their door greeters and their public "folksy" image, but the truth is they're giving old people and handicapped people jobs and they care about what they carry and sell. And, if you want to be really pragmatic: it can serve both purposes at once...so it's good business.
The real thing that gets me about Wal-Mart is their not giving people a decent wage. That's what sticks in my craw.
I don't think the author of the book has anything to do with the value of a movie. I don't know where I'm going with that, but I thought I'd mention it.
Finally, both Matt/Dan talked about the implied social contract between Miller and the Utah public and the film's distributers. And that's where his evility and censorship can be found. I suppose I can see the "censorship" issue: since libraries also have an implied social responsibility to allow free speech ... and when they choose not to carry a book on moral grounds they are acting the censor.
When it comes down to it, though, the library IS a censor. Parents are censors for their kids. Businesses are censors for the public. The FCC is a censor of radio and television. Like it or not, all of these people/organizations have a position of authority and the power to decide what the public can or can't see. That is a responsibility as well as a power...and they need to be careful where they draw the line.
Which is why most of these organizations (with the exception of parents, possibly) should allow for public debate and input. Educational boards should have public forums before "banning" books, etc. All dependent on the degree to which an organization is public or private.
So Larry H. Miller is more in the private domain than in the public. He is a business. Wal-Mart is also a business. A library is more on the public side of things and should have more public input. A government should have the most public input of all.
So when it comes down to it, I suppose Larry Miller stopped a few people from being able to watch that movie in his theater and was unfortunately impolite enough not to warn them beforehand. If his distributers truly lost money from his actions and he was under contract to earn them a certain amount of money, they should sue him for it and he should pay it.
But I think the major issue here is different people's opinion about liberal constraint. Do I have the right to see/hear/watch/do anything I want or do other people have the right to constrain me?
What's funny is that the most liberal people, who feel they should have every freedom imaginable, feel that Larry H. Miller, the public servant, doesn't have the same right.
One more thing: I don't know for sure, but I thought movie theaters just rented the reel and then kept the ticket sales. I didn't think distributors got a percentage of each ticket sale. And then the more recent the movie, the more expensive the reel (to rent) and then the longer it's been out, the less expensive (hence: dollar theaters)
Post a Comment