The movie is about their relationship, of course they'll be seen kissing multiple times. It's HBO 2013, not network tv in the 80s.
How could they cast a guy with no butt (Damon) to be a homosexual?
For some reason I have a feeling that Michael Douglas is going to nail this role.
R3, Damon has no butt? Why all the discussion about his butt then?
There had better be lots of mincing and prancing!
PASADENA, CA - JANUARY 04: Actors Michael Douglas and Matt Damon speak about the new HBO film "Behind The Candelabra" during the HBO Winter 2013 TCA Panel at The Langham Huntington Hotel and Spa on January 4, 2013 in Pasadena, California. (Photo by Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic)
Douglas doesn't look much like Liberace, frankly he looks like corpse these days. So he better be able to do a dead-on impression of him at least.
How is Matt Damon famous? I am still stumped. I feel this is a backwards earth we live in.
Am I alone in this feeling? Probably. Oh well.
Matt Damon is a good guy and a decent actor. Nothing extraordinary but I am happy for his success.
The fact is this a movie every studio rejected as too gay even though it was Soderbeg, Damon and Douglas. All big names. The fact they kept going and made it anyway is awesome commitment and I look forward to seeing it.
I love a minstrel show where the str8 men mince around acting like fags. Love it.
Are they flaming in this movie? Because you know, that's what society expects.
Sounds like good clean fun
It's what any sentient being would expect from a Liberace bio, r21. You can either make a movie about a flaming queen, or not make a movie about Liberace. Those are the only two options.
Who was the costume designer? I need to know where to get that faboo caftan Douglas is wearing before next Sunday's brunch!
Looking forward to it, R23. I was glad when Sly Stallone turned down the role.
Finally, my boyfriend Matt Damon is going to kiss a man onscreen. And it's Michael Douglas.
There is no God.
R26, Ben, is that you?
I heard that CZJ is pissed because she's not old enough to get into R rated movies so she won't get to see it.
Would someone PLEASE explain to R12 the difference between blonde hair and grey hair.
op's pic of michael douglas is what i imagine most eldergay dataloungers to look like. yes?
I was surprised they went with Mike Douglas cause he looks older than dirt and nothing like Liberace, even with the wigs and makeup. Let's hope he nailed it acting-wise. I think Cheyenne Jackson is in this as well.
Cheyenne Jackson will be in the movie, too.
I can't look at any photos or trailers. The thought of these two playing lovers makes me sick.
R1, I'm pretty sure that's Cheyenne Jackson in the photo, not Matt Damon. That's why the legs look so good!
R3 seems to have thought that he has no ass. He must be new.. Damon's is one of the top 3 ass icons with Sidney Crosby and Anthony Reker (sp?).
r17 - Yeah, Damon is 20 years too old for the part. How is a middle-aged man going to portray a teen? Douglas is 10 years older than Liberace was when he met Thorson, but it's not as much of a stretch.
R43, Matt Damon's ass looks flat when compared to Recker's and Crosby's (and Chad Hendrick's, Cal Ripken Jr's., Chris Meloni's, Matthew McConaughey's, Apolo Ohno's, etc. etc. etc.).
It wouldn't be very PC to portray a relationship with someone so young.
r46 - Even if that's a consideration, it's ridiculous to cast a 40 year old in the part.
R45, I agree that Damon's ass is not as big as Recker's, Crosby's or Hedrick's. I'm not sure how it compares to Ripken's, Meloni's or Ohno's. However, it's bigger and rounder than McBongo's.
I didn't know Cheyenne was in this. What is his role? Please tell me there is some chance him and Damon will make out? Cause I could use that in my life. A lot.
[R18], you don't need to re-upholster my pet animals in fur. They already have plenty. So does my man.
[quote]However, it's bigger and rounder than McBongo's
Hell to the no. Matthew McConaughey has a donkey butt. It's HUGE.
There's no reason for this movie, except prurient meanness disguised as camp.
And it's not because I have any fondness for Liberace, whom I loathed. It's just a tedious cheap shot.
Douglas should be ashamed, but it's not a concept with which he has any familiarity. And Damon? His big ass is a redundancy, because that's what he comes across as here.
This movie is about Liberace. Reading that interview @ R58, they really need to do a sequel about Thorson's sordid life after being dumped as a teenage kept boy. Sheesh.
Michael Douglas knew Liberace so he had something to work with. Kirk Douglas had a home just down the street from Liberace and they used to see each other at parties in the neighborhood.
Debbie Reynolds was friends with Liberace's mother, so she also had that to work with.
R60 Wow. That watermelon diet really took its toll, didn't it?
Douglas looks more like Skippy Lowe
Why in the hell was Oprah wearing a fur coat in her studio interviewing Liberace?? Don't they heat the place????
But it was nice to see her as she was before she began shouting in that annoying monotone which has come to be her signature.
I felt so sad for Liberace. He looked pretty good for 6 weeks from death. He wasn't even close to the Rock Hudson downward slide we all saw in that Doris Day promotion he did as a favor to her.
By Tyler Coates on Jun 4, 2013 2:06pm
[Hollywood Didn’t Think ‘Behind the Candleabra’ Was “Too Gay” — It Just Didn’t Care About Liberace]
I was dubious when I heard (for the first of many times) that Steven Soderbergh’s Liberace biopic Behind the Candelabra couldn’t find studio backing because the subject matter was “too gay.” Sure, there aren’t too many “gay” movies these days (and, if they do have gay characters, they’re typically played by straight actors), but with the critical success of films like Brokeback Mountain and Milk, the idea that Behind the Candelabra was too explicit for movie theaters seemed more like Soderbergh calling out Hollywood homophobia for a movie that simply didn’t interest studio heads. It turns out Hollywood executives are also calling bullshit on Soderbergh’s claims.
When Mother Jones writer Asawin Suebsaeng quoted Soderbergh’s claims that the movie was “too gay” to get a theatrical release in his review of the HBO film, at least one Warner Bros. representative — Mark Fritz, a director of theatrical sales and distribution — responded on Twitter that the allegations were false.
@motherjones @hbo Sorry, but it is completely untrue that this film was deemed “too gay” by Hollywood.
— Mark Fritz (@MarkAndrewFritz) May 28, 2013
Soderbergh, of course, gave more background to Mother Jones that seemingly downplays his original cries of homophobia:
In Soderbergh’s view, the reason you can’t see Behind the Candelabra in American theaters has as much to do with financially — though not politically — conservative executives as it does with the palate of the American movie-going public. “It’s all economics,” he says. “The point I was trying to make was not that anyone in Hollywood is anti-gay. It was that economic forces make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to think outside of the box…If audiences were going in great numbers to see stuff that was not down the middle, then everyone would be doing that…[Hollywood is] merely responding to what people are telling them they want to see!”
That is a completely different take than Soderbergh originally gave. In this most recent account to Mother Jones, it sounds like the film was simply passed around Hollywood and didn’t find a home. Back in January of this year, Soderbergh told The Wrap in a very clear message the reason why the film couldn’t find its $5 million funding: “They said it was too gay. Everybody. This was after Brokeback Mountain, by the way. Which is not as funny as this movie. I was stunned. It made no sense to any of us.”
That is, of course, part of the buzzy marketing campaign behind the movie’s premiere on HBO: here is a film that was considered too hot for theaters! And now it’s on a cable network! Can you believe it?
Well, can I? Not really. The movie, at the end of the day, wasn’t very gay. It featured two fairly tame sex scenes between its male leads (they were about as graphic as what we saw in Brokeback Mountain). Is it more likely that movie studios didn’t want to fund a movie about Liberace? Probably! There aren’t many desirable demographics, after all, familiar enough with Liberace, who at his most successful — over half a century ago — was still a schlocky entertainer who appealed to older women. Even the star power involved (both Damon and Douglas, as well as Soderbergh), it seems, wasn’t enough to fund the production, not because it was “too gay” but because Liberace isn’t exactly someone a lot of moviegoers are talking about these days. (William Friedkin, who directed two of the gayest films in the last 50 years, made a similar comment in my interview with him last week: “I imagine it was disappointing to Soderbergh to not have the film in theaters, but he said, and I quote, ‘No studio would release it because it’s too gay.’ I find that weird. I think that people are so past that now… I very much admire Soderbergh, but when you hear stuff like that, it discounts the quality of the piece itself, which may be a reason why distributors didn’t want to touch it — not because it’s too gay.”)
It’s speculative to say whether or not the film would have been as successful in theaters as it was on television — it was the most-watched HBO film ever, pulling in 2.1 million viewers. Is it unlikely that the film wouldn’t have made much money if it received a theatrical release? That’s speculative. But let’s compare it to the two most recent major gay-themed films: Brokeback Mountain earned $83 million in North American during its theatrical run, while Milk earned $1.4 million on its opening weekend in just 36 theaters. Both of those films had much higher budgets. Is it possible that, years later, executives really believe Behind the Candelabra’s gay subject matter too risky, or is it that Liberace was not seen as a big enough box-office draw? I’m guessing it’s more of the latter.
But what’s really more alarming is Soderbergh’s assertion that Hollywood is homophobic — that is, until after the film premiered on HBO. It’s only now that it’s being seen as a success that he’s changing his tune a bit. The major studios certainly aren’t in the business of making films for niche audiences just for the fun of it, and there are major problems with gay-themed films put out by major studios. But perhaps Soderbergh shouldn’t create a gay outrage over the fact that his “final” film didn’t get the studio reception he had hoped for. After all, his last two theatrical releases featured gay elements (the erotic thriller Side Effects, which featured a lesbian sex scene, is a more specific example; there’s also the gently homoerotic Magic Mike). More than anything, Soderbergh’s “too gay” comments seem like a case of a straight man co-opting the personal struggles of others as a marketing tactic.
can anyone provide a link to a free download of this flick? i'm cheap, don't have HBO, and don't want to wait till my local library has it in stock.
thanks in advance.
Straights can't play gay effectively, they get things too affected.
Just saw it on HBO free weekend promo. Damon and Douglas were good, but I expected more nudity, especially from Damon.
Agree that it belonged on HBO, not in movie theaters. When it was originally showed in May/June, several of my straight friends watched (and enjoyed discussing the film), but doubt they would have paid $12 to see Behind The Candelabra is a theater.
I thought it was cringe-worthy. Watching that creepy Michael Douglas doing geigh was just too much...Damon too...too much.
another side of Damon's demented leftism, it's a bit creepy seeing him (Jason Bourne) playing a role in which he seemed mostly comatose
I thought Matt Damon was the only reason to watch the film. Michael Douglas was good as well, but Damon's playing dumb was fun to watch even if he was too old for the part.
I saw the "making of" feature; Damon definitely did not hide how uncomfortable it made him to act in this flick.
In what ways, R76?
I saw the "making of" feature; Damon definitely did not hide how uncomfortable it made him to act in this flick."
It showed onscreen, and IMHO ruined the movie. Damon looked like he hated Liberace and everything about the environment it was in; with that and the constant protestations that he (Thorson) wasn't really gay, it was like spending two hours with the kind of idiot who insists he's straight as he gives head.
Damon says he was glad most of the kissing and nude scenes were done in one take. His mother was on set for the scene when he comes out of the pool with only a speedo, and soon Douglas puts his hands on Damon's butt.
Why would Damon's mom be on the set? Is she still a stage mother?
Did anyone started a thread about Michael Douglas not having throat cancer?
R81, I think so, but I don't think it got many responses. I'll look for it and bump it if I find it.
RE: Thorson's time with Liberace ended abruptly in 1982. That year, Liberace had members of his retinue forcibly eject Thorson from his penthouse in Los Angeles. It was a breakup caused, in part, by Thorson’s drug habit, which he says he developed trying to slim down, at Liberace’s urging, on what was called the “Hollywood diet,” a cocktail of doctor-prescribed drugs that pharmaceutical cocaine.
It just goes to show you the old adage, "All that glitters is not gold." Thorson had a few years of being spoiled by an old rich (and famous) man who sucked the life out of him and even had him get plastic surgery to make him look more like Daddy. Then he got d u m p e d
just like the nasty house boy predicted at the beginning.
Knowing what a hard life Thorson had, Liberance added to his misery and took advantage of his youthful beauty. Too bad Thorson could not have gotten away sooner and worked as an animal trainer like he wanted to do.