It looks as if the "Christian" Right did its damage to 'Brokeback Mountain' months ago when the movie was booked into theaters. First the film opened in five theaters; then so-called "general release" entailed sixty-nine theaters. It broke the all-time box office record per theater, but scarcely anyone outside of huge cities will have a chance to see it till it is released for home viewing. (My husband and I drove seventy-five miles each way to see it on its first day of release.)

When first release occurred, the media coverage was all about whether the movie would find general acceptance at the box office. We'll never really find out, and the topic will be blamed for the low total monetary returns rather than the studio or perhaps the theaters, who practiced their own kind of censorship, probably to avoid problems with the religious bigots.

Maybe not a circuit but definitely at least one gay rodeo.

Actually it seems to be true that gay men often have an easy trme getting women to take an interest. I've often wondered how much of this ease is due to the fact that women respond well to men who aren't after them and how much, if any, is due to characteristics that make gay men innately more appealing to women.

maybe if your 20 and cute, but believe me, there are lots of gay men who can't get a date, much less laid....

they are interested in how easy it is for them to get laid so often with so many different partners for so little effort under any conditions and on their own terms. What they are not interested in is the actual gay relationship. I think if you actually bring yourself to examine this interest honestly you will see that I am right.

I am a 30-something, heterosexual woman--and a Christian (on the liberal end). I have been looking forward to seeing both of these movies for some time. I saw a BBC version of LWW from many years ago and thought it was interesting. It's only been recently, as an adult, that I became aware of its Christian symbolism. That isn't the only thing interested about LLW, however. I have enjoyed Lord of the Rings and the recent Harry Potter movie. What's wrong with some fantasy and talking animals? I also saw the preview for Brokeback Mountain sometime ago, which peaked my interest. Then again, I like several of Ang Lee's movies, and have seen plenty of movies about gay men. I find it amusing that some people, because of their own homophobia, can be in such denial about the reality of gay cowboys. The reality of gay cowboys or any group of people isn't dependant upon whether people approve or not.

I look forward to both Narnia and Brokeback Mountain...

The latter? Sure, I shall enjoy it on both an intellectual and emotional level, but the shallow part of me says, "hello. I SO can't to see these guys make out!!" I know it's hard for some of you to fathom, but chicks DO like to see guys get it on.

That Knight is so damn smug, isn't he? Does he know anything about the fantasy genre and sexual awakenings in young girls? I've always been a big sci-fi/fantasy geek, and it was a huge influence in my sexual development (I'm not sure if the chicken or the egg came first in this respect).

I just recently joked to some friends that, with the releases of both Harry Potter AND Narnia, 2005 is shaping up to be an awesome year for horny 9 year olds.

I'm related to one of these Christianist nutjobs, and she does not allow her kids to have anything to do with any sort of fantasy, from Smurfs when they were younger to a movie with the word "Witch" in the title. There are plenty like her who believe that all fantasy is the work of the devil, whether written by C. S. Lewis or not.

'But Knight is really fired up about the affront to the ghosts of westerns past: "I think this shows that Hollywood can pervert anything. Part of the enduring appeal of westerns is the display of brotherhood, unhindered by sexualization. ... The western was a morality tale, so to make immorality the heart of this western is to violate the code of westerns. That's why it's not going to work." '

This passage suggests that Christians like Knight understand neither the strength of Christianity's critique of social structures nor their own attachment to American mythology. The genre of the western is neither sacred nor inherently Christian; it is an American genre that reflects American ideas. Christianity, like Judaism before it, takes the mythologies of the nations it inhabits and turns them inside out. So for Knight and Co. to be upset about that BBM inverts the genre shows they are more deeply wed to the American mythos than to Christianity.

And as for Sandy Dixon, someone should inform her there are enough gay cowboys to make up a gay rodeo circuit....

And this is why every single straight man alive will never see this film? If you were reaching any farther, you'd hurt your back.

Somehow, being queer hasn't stopped me from seeing a few thousand movies about the joys of heterosexual love -- something I have total comfort with AND total lack of interest in.

It's a movie. I don't have any interest in being an astronaut, the Devil, a 1950s housewife, Hannibal Lecter, President of the Unted States, a giant radioactive dinosaur, or a gazillion other things I could name. But I've seen movies about all of them. Who sees only films that are about people just like them?

Besides that, how many straight men have to write testimonials in this letter column before you accept that your, shall we say, aesthetic prejudices aren't shared by all straight men?

We get it: you want all straight men to not be interested in the lives of gay men. It's not true, you have no real-world reason for believing it's true, but you'll never stop saying it is true. Fine. Straight men are still going to see this film, anyway, you can go on pretending otherwise, and everybody's happy.