TotallyOz Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 "Brokeback Mountain" and "Milk" may have captivated audiences and swept award shows in recent years, but it seems Hollywood still has some reservations when it comes to portraying gay content on the big screen. Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh has revealed that many studios weren't exactly keen on "Behind the Candelabra," his much-anticipated Liberace biopic which is now set to air on HBO. Nobody would make it, Soderbergh told The New York Post of his new movie, which stars Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. We went to everybody in town. They all said it was too gay. Soderbergh, whose credits include "Ocean's Eleven" and "Traffic," as well as last summer's smash "Magic Mike," said he was "stunned" by the response. "This is after Brokeback Mountain, by the way, which is not as funny as this movie," he recalled. "The studios didnt know how to sell it. They were scared. Damon, who plays the long-term lover of Liberace (Douglas), has previously said of the film, "These two men were deeply in love and in a real relationship -- a marriage -- long before there was gay marriage...The script is beautiful and relatable. Their conversations when theyre dressing or undressing or having a spat or getting ready for bed? Thats every marriage." Soderbergh's revelation comes just days after HBO announced plans to air "The Normal Heart," Ryan Murphy's film adaptation of Larry Kramer's award-winning play about the HIV-AIDS crisis in New York. "Heart," which will debut in 2014, will reportedly star Julia Roberts, Mark Ruffalo and "White Collar" hunk Matt Bomer. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/06/behind-the-candelabra-liberace-michael-douglas-matt-damon-gay_n_2420726.html flipao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flipao Posted January 12, 2013 Members Share Posted January 12, 2013 thank you! I remember the work of him in the Talented Mr. Ripley and the rumors about his strong relation with the actor Ben Affleck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BudFoxx Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I'm willing to bet that Michael Douglas would not have made this film, if presented to him, 10 or even 15 years ago and the same for Matt Damon. Why? Because they would have known how poisonous it would have been to their careers at the time. Douglas, now in the twilight of his career (plus fighting cancer) has nothing to lose and possibly some personal self-liberation to gain from it. I love just about everything Michael Douglas has ever done, all the way back to the Streets of San Francisco TV show. He is an extraordinary actor. It's been said that some of the greatest films ever made will leave an audience uncomfortable with themselves and therefore seeking greater understanding and insight. I just can't imagine this film ever even coming close to that. This film is not about being gay - or even about being "too gay." This film is about a persons over the top, flamboyant personality, lifestyle and talent; and for having a scandalous relationship that even Harvey Levin today, would have probably, prematurely ruptured his own mother's uterus, possibly even causing her death, to get out and spread the word, had he gotten the scoop. When I think of this film - I think of Lindsay Lohan. Minus, of course, the talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BudFoxx Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Also, If I might just add this: Harvey Milk was never an entertainer. He was an activist. He did not have riches nor did he have glamor to define himself which others have here defined themselves before him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It still looks like a train wreck to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caeron Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It still looks like a train wreck to me. That's my initial reaction as well, but the people involved are very good at what they do, so I'll wait and see. TotallyOz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Suckrates Posted January 13, 2013 Members Share Posted January 13, 2013 It still looks like a train wreck to me. It WILL BE a Fag-ulous campy romp. Its worth turning in if Only to see them Kiss.... Its called "ACTTING" people.... Not sure why all the fuss about them taking the roles. If Escorts can be "Gay for Pay" why cant an esteemed STR8 actor take a GAY role for 20 million dollars ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JKane Posted January 13, 2013 Members Share Posted January 13, 2013 Soderbergh's revelation comes just days after HBO announced plans to air "The Normal Heart," Ryan Murphy's film adaptation of Larry Kramer's award-winning play about the HIV-AIDS crisis in New York."Heart," which will debut in 2014, will reportedly star Julia Roberts, Mark Ruffalo and "White Collar" hunk Matt Bomer. I love that they do it, but it seems odd to me that HBO is both the only network I can think of to have addressed the crisis and they do it fairly regularly: And The Band Played On and Angles In America... It's like they feel it is their duty to remind each generation..? TotallyOz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I can't understand Angels in America at all. Why do angels have to involved in it? What roles do they play? The plot is confusing and don't know how the characters are connected... What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotallyOz Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 I can't understand Angels in America at all. Why do angels have to involved in it? What roles do they play? The plot is confusing and don't know how the characters are connected... What am I missing? Did you see this show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Yes I did.. I know that it was received well but it fails to reconcile religion with homosexuality. Maybe that's hard to do and the author's intention was not on that issue but I think it could have written in a different way.. Also introducing a controversial figure like Rosenburg is something that makes it more confusing to me... What was the author's intention? Can some org help me with this? Did you see this show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
