Why is Brokeback Mountain Hitting Home for So Many?
Four years ago, after watching Stephen Spielberg‘s movie Artificial Intelligence: AI with my friend Elaine, I didn’t want to leave the theater. I was blown away by the flick and thought it was much shorter than its over two-hour running time. Bored by the same flick that “got” me, Elaine thought it was much longer. Still, given my own experience, I was certain it would do gangbusters business at the box office. I was wrong. Most moviegoers reacted to the film as did Elaine. The movie had a steep second week drop off and was considered a box office disappointment, one of the few Spielberg movies to gross under $100 million (at the domestic box office).
In loving a film that was not well loved by American audiences, I realized (yet again) how one movie (just like a book or other work of art) could move some people while leaving others cold. It seems I’m experiencing the opposite with Brokeback Mountain. While I was disappointed by the flick, nearly all my gay friends have been “blown away” by this story of unrealized love. And it’s not just my gay friends. My friend Tracy was stunned that the movie did not affect me as it had affected her. She was certain that a scene at the end would have moved me to tears as it did her. I acknowledge that such scenes would normally move me, but for some reason, that one left me cold.
Another man with whom I always agree on movies thought it was one of the best movies of the year. When I was up in San Francisco, I met a reader (and fan) of this blog who had already seen it twice, noting how the film, in some ways, paralleled his own coming out, portraying an experience for which he lacked language. He too was “blown away” by the flick. While not blown away, Malcontent “related to it strongly because it reminded me of growing up and struggling with my sexuality in a stoic, repressed ranching town.”
Because so many people I respect enjoyed the movie far more than I, I’m beginning to wonder if I missed something. Perhaps, it was just that I saw it on a hectic day — and was seeing it more because readers were curious to learn what I thought about it. Or maybe it was the hype. Or, for whatever reason, the movie just didn’t hit home for me. As I wrote a few weeks ago, I recognize “certain movies move some of us to tears while leaving others cold.”
Because the movie did not blow me away as it did many of you, I invite you, our readers, to comment and share how the movie affected you — and why you think it blew you away (or why it left you cold). If you would rather share your thoughts in an e-mail, please drop me a note and let me know if I may post them. In closing, I will say that the movie did stir some things up for me and I may blog on that later. But now I want to hear your thoughts. Let me know if it stirred things up for you or if there were scenes which really hit home for you. And if you like, let me know if you think I should give the movie a second chance — and see it again.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
In the Addendum after the (more…), I have included the complete text of Malcontent‘s remarks excerpted in the post and may add on other comments as I see fit.
ADDENDUM: Malcontent‘s comment:
Even though Brokeback Mountain and Signal, Wyo., are not actual places, I grew up in a town in Wyoming that was only a few miles from many of the real places mentioned in the short story and movie, such as Riverton and Worland. A lot of gay bloggers and others seem intent on “claiming” the movie as their own, and while there were many universal themes, I related to it strongly because it reminded me of growing up and struggling with my sexuality in a stoic, repressed ranching town. I didn’t know for a fact that any of the people where I grew up were gay, let alone seeing such a realistic portrayal of gay love and the barriers we face to true happiness. “Brokeback” brought back a lot of that past to me with performances and settings that were genuine and heart-breaking.
74 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I had the same reaction. Not to say that it left me cold, it seemed to me to keep a certain distance. In a way I was grateful that it didn’t try to manipulate my emeotions, which it easily could have. Thinking back, I admire it more for it’s restraint. The director could have chosen to make an incendiary film. Instead, he made a thoughtful one.
Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 3:06 pm - December 29, 2005
I gotta go with Elaine on AI. I thought I was going to grow old and die waiting for that movie to end. The only thing as long and boring I can compare it too is “Bicentennial Man” with Robin Williams.
Comment by Queer Conservative — December 29, 2005 @ 3:07 pm - December 29, 2005
Holy cow! I agree with one of our strongest critics. Hank is spot on when he writes that Lee made a thoughtful film rather than an incendiary one. It frustrates me when people call this a political flick when it’s anything but. And like QC (in #2), I thought Bicentennial Man was dull.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 29, 2005 @ 3:19 pm - December 29, 2005
I haven’t seen it yet, but frankly BBM scares me. I know exactly the environment Jake and Ennis are in; both the rural milieu, and it’s small-town/suburban counterpart. While generally I have a heart of stone, just what I have read on Andy Towle’s site gets me weepy. I frankly afraid to go see it.
I fear it’s power,
I fear it’s truth,
I fear losing it while sitting in the dark theater alone.
And I fear that shirt in Ennis’ closet.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 29, 2005 @ 3:31 pm - December 29, 2005
You may have noticed that I have modulated my tone. There are certain “hot-button” issues with which I must agree (silently) to disagree, but for the most part the level of intelligence here is undeniable.
And I do like a good argument.
Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 3:33 pm - December 29, 2005
I saw it first in San Francisco with my wrestling buddies, and then took my mother in NJ to see it over Christmas.
There is so much that happens so quickly that I missed it the first time. I approached the first viewing with the analysis & apprehension that I would NOT like it, expecting another sensationalist victim story.
I cried at my second viewing, remembering my deceased partners from the ’70s.
For those of my generation, the story rings so true it hurts. My mother picked up on stuff that only straight women would notice… the bizarre behavior of so-called straight hunks they have all known (as have we !).
Jack & Ennis never considered themselves ‘queer’ in the stereotypical media portrayals of the ’60s. They had these incredible feelings for each other that could not be expressed with any language of the day. It was a demonic possession that manifest itself in borderline violence.
A lot of us, probably the majority of us can relate to this latter day ‘Same Time Next Year’.
Comment by Gene Dermody — December 29, 2005 @ 4:28 pm - December 29, 2005
Dan!
Did you see this in The Itathca Journal?
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051229/OPINION02/512290303/1014/OPINION
You’re mentioned along with myself. I’m glad SOMEONE thinks I’m hot even if you don’t…..;-)
Comment by Rightwingsparkle — December 29, 2005 @ 4:38 pm - December 29, 2005
Personally, the story is simply the time-honored formula for a weepy romace. It’s a well-executed film.
From a dramatic point of view, I was not particularly impressed by the chemistry between Jake and Heath. Some actors have it and some do not.
The blow-away factor came from seeing my America shown for the first time. I still can’t quite believe it finally happened.
Thanks for the good work.
Pax Hart
Comment by Pax Hart — December 29, 2005 @ 5:08 pm - December 29, 2005
BBM, I haven’t seen yet, but I’m moved to comment by Dan’s view of A.I.. Like him, I thought this was a powerful and moving film, which has amazed me every time I’ve seen it. There’s no explaining what the public likes, and why. Spielberg’s A.I. and his other “flop” Empire of the Sun are two of my favorites.
I’m going to see Brokeback soon, but with ever lowering expectations….
Comment by Daniel Johnson — December 29, 2005 @ 5:43 pm - December 29, 2005
Summary: I cried. Yes, a lot.
Not earth-shattering, heaving sobs, no hankies needed. Just a lot of bitter, sad, regretful tears because it’s not going to get any better for these two, this story is going to be that sad, and the slow realization that I have just seen the life story of millions upon millions of repressed and hidden gays in this and other countries. In fact, since these 2 characters had each other, the life stories I just saw probably depict better lives than what many in-the-closet gays ever experience.
As someone who came out less than a year ago, and is still going through the family and world issues every day: oh yeah, it blew me away.
My wild guess as to why others never get blown away: there is no validation moment. No time when the characters fight back, or come out, or embrace who they are–none of that is the point, nor are these characters equipped for it. Nor is there some grand Romeo and Juliet tragic ending. So don’t look for the payoff, don’t wait for the moment when you are expected to feel *something*. Just watch and absorb and think about the emotions these guys lived–for over 20 years.
Comment by Daniel Montiel — December 29, 2005 @ 5:48 pm - December 29, 2005
Dan,
I think you need to evaluate reactions to movie in terms of your mythology classes. (I have not seen it.)
Many times in the past various movies have become popular or seminal or important regardless of the quality or lack thereof of the actual product.
Look at Star Wars for example. The original is formulaic, the acting often awkward, and the movie is at times downright cheesy. And this is not based on 20/20 hindsight, I loved the movie, but I thought the same of it then as I do now.
But what happened with Star Wars may be happening to a certain extent, with Brokeback Mountain, in that it becomes a sort of Greek Tragedy in the original sense in that the audience participates in the telling of the story by replacing on-screen situations with ones in their own lives, no matter how different those lives can be. This is essence of universal appeal. It is a feeling of participation in the movie that causes the emotional reaction. They “buy into” it.
Exactly what makes an audience attach themselves to a movie in this way is unclear. I would think that if anyone had found a fool-proof way of doing it, that there would be a lot less flops coming out of Hollywood these days. But it’s certainly not based on just how “good” a movie has been made, but is a combination of things, including the make-up of the culture when it is released and the issues that are in the air.
Over the last few years, the gay and lesbian communities and our friends have endured the great big fat finger of America pointing at us and telling us that our kind of “love” isn’t love at all. Regardless of intentions on the part of individuals, this is the collective symbolic underlying message of the anti-marriage movement.
Having gone through that, perhaps the emotional reaction to Brokeback Mountain is our answer to that message, that yes, our love really is “real love”. What better way is there to demonstrate this than by showing our heartbreak? I’m not saying this is anything intentionally political, but that maybe what you are seeing is just an emotional response to the times we live in.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 29, 2005 @ 6:27 pm - December 29, 2005
Dan I guess I’m slightly with you here. I found it enjoyable entertainment. But it didn’t even come close to “blowing me away”.
The guys were cute. The scenery was pretty. The acting was sometimes competent – and sometimes not! The glamorization of barebacking was predictable and boring. The movie’s plot “issue” of gay men avoiding intimacy (for whatever reasons) hit somewhat close – but not too close. The movie seemed a little bit thoughtful – but not very. The “coming out” aspects have been well covered by others.
I will probably see it once more in life (if only as a DVD rental with a boyfriend), but I don’t rank it as Great. My overall reaction was, “It was OK….it’s been done before.”
Comment by Calarato — December 29, 2005 @ 6:36 pm - December 29, 2005
…. and I’m sure we are all about to hear how Hollywood strays from mainstream values when this movie inevitably gets Oscar nods. FauxNews is already going there, I’m sure Trann Coulter is not far behind.
Comment by Come On! — December 29, 2005 @ 7:10 pm - December 29, 2005
Some good insights Patrick especially re: Star Wars of which I am a huge fan dedespite some of the flaws you mention. That flick really hits home to me — and continues to do so after many viewings.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 29, 2005 @ 7:32 pm - December 29, 2005
The movie only brought back very painful memories for me. Having gotten married when only 19, I thought the whole experience would ‘change me’. It’s one thing to put yourself through that ordeal, but to put another innocent person through all that is just not fair, and it’s down right mean. The movie doesn’t bring justice to the poor woman who has to go through that – it’s rather selfish.
There is one poignant scene when Ennis is trying to explain to Jack why he can’t ‘cross the line’. Basically he says it’s inbred. It’s as much part of his character as it is to like guys. “That’s not the way things are done around here.” I’ll bet most of your readers are living with all things Gay. Gay diners. Gay books. Gay bars. Gay church. Gay water. If, however you are like me, then you are not, and you have to act ‘straight’, or as I like to say, a regular person. In the South (Mesquite, TX), a guy doesn’t wear white, drink Corona, and definately not a Cosmopolitan. A good friend of mine walks around proudly with one of those ‘man purses’. It drives me crazy (my upbringing). I’m embarassed and I just want to bash him with it.
Even if Ennis and Jack were to get together, they would ultimately end up like those poor fellows that lived alone in the foothills, hiding from the townfolk. Things are getting more liberated, but I don’t forsee total liberation for the gay couple.
That’s my story. On a lighter side I sure would like to have a ‘high altitude f*** with Ennis. He looks dang good in those jeans.
jamescalvin
Comment by jamescalvin — December 29, 2005 @ 7:56 pm - December 29, 2005
Just one point:
Someone says that it glamorized barebacking. Frankly this is a stupid argument. The sex scene took place in the 1960s, decades before AIDS became an issue. Was it really realistic to expect 1960s gay men out in the middle of no where with no compelling reason to be safe, to stop and look for a condom?
Comment by Justin — December 29, 2005 @ 8:24 pm - December 29, 2005
Justin, sorry dude, but you’ve just made a very stupid argument.
It’s a story. And that means EVERY BIT OF EMPHASIS and detail in the story, IS THERE BY DESIGN on the part of the director and writer. (English 101)
If you want to ask questions about the realities of 1960: Why did bareback anal sex have to be constructed as Jake & Ennis’ very first sexual act? Given who the characters were, i.e., all uptight and especially uptight about gay sex, having them just Jack each other (so to speak) would have been far more realistic.
So the moment of emphasis on bareback anal sex was POINTED. Check and mate.
(last few puns not intended
)
Comment by Calarato — December 29, 2005 @ 9:31 pm - December 29, 2005
jamescalvin,
I lived in a suburb of Dallas for 11 yrs and on our block lived a gay couple. Most of us were conservative there. We treated them like we would any neighbor. I think you underestimate people. Whether they agree with your lifestyle or not, I think they will treat you nicely.
Comment by Rightwingsparkle — December 29, 2005 @ 9:32 pm - December 29, 2005
I remembered one positive thing that impressed me about the movie.
I was fascinated by the spareness of the dialogue – how much would get communicated between 2 people just by them “reading” each other and using their own power of inference (i.e., logic). Words / articulation do NOT equal intelligence. I know that’s a cultural thing or how a lot of people are, and it was fun to see it studied in a movie.
Comment by Calarato — December 29, 2005 @ 10:07 pm - December 29, 2005
But Calarato, remember, they were SHEEP herders. I heard them jokes in the 60′s bout them sheepherders:)
I was also impressed by the silences. The guy who played Ennis (I should know his name) may win an Oscar for his ability to speak volumes without saying a word..
Has anyone seen Casanova?
Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 10:26 pm - December 29, 2005
First off, I haven’t seen the movie yet, and for a very good reason…..I want to be with my significant other when I do. Stories of separated love are very hard for me personally, and I will need to have him close by to hold, to hug, and to cry on his shoulder (and I bet you money I WILL cry).
That being said, to jamescalvin’s point above, I feel strongly that the most important lesson Brokeback can teach is that, while the fundies may consider being gay to be “selfish” and “hedonistic”, that choice only affects the gay person; trying to play straight is putting one’s own welfare ahead of numerous other innocent lives that are bent and broken by the decision — and that is what the antigay wingnuts demand that gays do.
Brokeback, no matter how good it is, is not a political statement or a change agent; it’s a movie, made for entertainment. However, if it serves as a springboard to further discussion or opens doors for us to talk more freely with people, it will be much more. The question is not whether the film is up to it….but if we are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2005 @ 12:54 am - December 30, 2005
And on a different note, you may want to check out the movie Casanova; to say I was impressed is a gross understatement.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2005 @ 12:55 am - December 30, 2005
-Given who the characters were, i.e., all uptight and especially uptight about gay sex, having them just Jack each other (so to speak) would have been far more realistic.-
But the characters were supposed to be ignoring the emotions of their feelings and only focusing on the raw physical aspects. Ennis wanted to dominate because he was trying to drive out the feelings he had for Jack. So he roughly tops Jack.
-I’ll bet most of your readers are living with all things Gay. Gay diners. Gay books. Gay bars. Gay church. Gay water. If, however you are like me, then you are not, and you have to act ’straight’, or as I like to say, a regular person.-
Anyone can order a gay book. Dallas, not exactly the most liberal area, has a big gay church. Many places have gay bars. Many people go to these places and they don’t focus solely on gays, or carry purses. Life is a lot more complicated than choosing between one or the other.
As for why the movie strikes a chord, probably because many gay men have been waiting for generations to see a major, sweeping saga that acknowledges the struggle gays go through. We’ve never had our own Gone With the Wind. We are just expected to identify with the female character, or not identify at all. This is the first step, hopefully far from the last step, in Hollywood seeing that we exist.
It’s similar to the way some of my lesbian friends felt the first time they saw Desert Hearts.
Comment by Carl — December 30, 2005 @ 3:42 am - December 30, 2005
“Ennis wanted to dominate because he was trying to drive out the feelings he had for Jack.”
So Ennis’ having sex with Jack is an attempt to eliminate his feelings? To a certain extent, even in his own misguided mind? – Sorry, not buying it at all.
If that’s what the original story says or implies, it is weaker than I imagined (with Ennis not being psychologically credible or even psychologically intelligible – not even as an intentionally damaged or twisted character).
Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2005 @ 4:06 am - December 30, 2005
Also – Let me grant instead, for argument’s sake, that your theory might work as part of Ennis’ long-term motivation, or as a layer of the difficulties in the Ennis-Jack relationship.
Even granting that, the questions remains unanswered: why would anal sex be Jack & Ennis’ first sexual act? And why make a point of lingering over the “bareback anality” in the finished movie?
Remember: Screen time is extremely precious. The director had a huge amount of ground to cover in 120 minutes. No reason he couldn’t have just shown the footage of Jack and Ennis’ wrestling each other down and forcing kisses, then cut to the footage of the tent rocking. We would have had visible gay sexuality (not evading it), with a bit less screen time used up.
No matter how you slice it, we, the gay male demographic, were MEANT by the director to look at the barebacking scene and go “Oooh, yeah… Bareback… 1960 cowboys could and would… Hot!!”
There’s just no getting around that basic act of “Director’s intent”. And that, precisely, is how Hollywood glamorizes anything. It was a Director’s choice. And the Director’s choice serves to glamorize.
Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2005 @ 4:26 am - December 30, 2005
Just the sight of Ennis Del Mar sitting on his own in some god forsaken lonely diner with a pathetic gluey looking piece of apple pie killed me.
Becuase it was clear to me by that point that it was all he was ever going to get from life: just silence and solitude.
Heath Ledger’s performance is astonishing. He doesn’t need to hit you over the head with histronics – the script is amazing, the direction hits the right notes and the cast is flawless.
Comment by fastlad — December 30, 2005 @ 9:44 am - December 30, 2005
My partner and I saw Brokeback Mountain last week. It was an excellent movie for various reasons. The story and acting was exciting, and the scenery was nice to see on the big screen. Although it is not the first movie of its kind, it may be the first to succeed in mainstream theatres. Time will tell, of course.
The movie hits home on many levels. Yes, there are some who have been able to live honestly and openly in their lives from day one, and some of those even demean the rest of us who didn’t have it so lucky. But for the majority of us, there was always some obstacle to coming out, having intimate relationships, and/or having a meaningful relationships, even if we knew the consequences weren’t dire for doing so. And for those of us who are living open and honest lives, we still face some obstacles to equality, whether they are legal or social.
I agree with Hank and GPW that the movie was more thoughtful than incendiary. It also didn’t try to portray the Ennis and Jake as angels and every straight person as evil. Each of the characters had their flaws. And like many relationships, there aren’t always happy endings.
Calarato, as for the movie glamorizing barebacking, I’m afraid I didn’t see it. Yes, I agree that there was a reason that the scene was shown in the movie, as per English 101. Since I can’t read Lee’s mind, I can only speculate. First, since he made the choice to show the scene, then obviously, because of the timing, having condoms would not have made sense. As to why the particular scene was shown…my guess is the following. Jake was the initiator. I think that this was not his first time having sex, probably bottomed before, and figured this was the only way he was going to have this first encounter with Ennis. Ennis was reluctant at first, but decided to pursue it with the condition that he be the “dominant” one, and most like, in his perception, being the straight one in the sexual encounter. The next time you see Ennis and Jake together romantically, is much more tender. So this made the romance more realistic given the two characters. This is my take, and for all I know, Ang Lee’s point perhaps was to glamorize barebacking. But I have a habit of not always reading more into things unnecessarily, especially when the connotation is extremely negative.
Comment by Pat — December 30, 2005 @ 9:54 am - December 30, 2005
I can agree with the Dallas-area posters. Here in Houston, we have gay everything – churches, restaurants, clubs, bars, gyms and even “theme” nights (you know, Sunday brunch at X restaurant, Monday happy hour at Y’s etc.). Straight Houstonians know about these things but it never seems to cause any concern. Heck, our city controller is a gay woman and so is one of our at-large councilmembers – and their preference/identity were never issues! So don’t tell me that straight America doesn’t cotton to us.
That being said, I agree that here in the South we take the gay approach a lot differently. The only ones who are “in your face gay” are usually those who move here and that’s how they express themselves. On the other hand, many Southerners like myself who are gay are more discreet and act “straight” not to compromise ourselves, but because it’s how we were brought up. You don’t stare, you don’t point and you show respect – those 3 lessons were hammered into us from an early age – right NDXXX?
The reason society makes rules for behavior is because once you know the rules, you can operate within their guidelines. For example, take the gay hankie modus operandi a few generations ago. If you were into a certain thing or fetish, your visibile handkerchief showed that preference. Outsiders see it as one thing, insiders as another. Just like that – no harm done, and nobody threatened. Society invents these rules so that people can indulge in their own interests and not be offensive to anyone. Again, it may be a regional thing. But I wouldn’t stake my life on it.
Regards,
Peter Hughes (blogging with a head cold and home from work)
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 30, 2005 @ 12:00 pm - December 30, 2005
Yes, I agree that there was a reason that the scene was shown in the movie, as per English 101. Since I can’t read Lee’s mind, I can only speculate.
I believe the reason it was included is that it’s actually in Annie Proulx’s story exactly that way. If anything, you should question her about why she wrote it thusly, rather than critiquing Lee for actually following the direction of the story. Ms. Proulx felt it important to include in the story and so one would assume the director should as well. Why do they have anal sex as their first encounter rather than something more innocent? That’s a question for critics to ponder and laymen to debate rather than an issue that a writer and a director have to justify.
Do you debate why Sharon Stone was written and directed to show her bits and pieces in Basic Instinct, for example?
And when did gay anal sex become some sort of novel practice, especially in the ’60s, that to see people do it as part of a gay love story is “glamorization?”
BTW, of all the movies I’ve seen where I’ve read or seen the original source material in it’s original form, (except for the last scene with the daughter) this is one of the most true to the original. The Color Purple, is a great example of conveniently removed graphic material. The physical side of the lesbian relationship is implied in the movie whereas in the novel it’s expressly included. Is it gratuitous to see the beauty of physical intimacy? When has it been removed from “straight” story lines in a similar manner?
Frankly, I’m glad to see, if anything, that Lee focused on a grown-up rendering of a mature and thoughtful story… that just happened to be about two gay men.
Comment by Read The Essay — December 30, 2005 @ 1:13 pm - December 30, 2005
How about:
ENNIS reaches for JACK. THEY stumble, inept in THEIR lust. WE hear the sound of a zipper as the camera pans slowly out the tent flap to a fullscreen shot of the star filled night. MOANS from the tent as a comet streaks across the sky, and we hear JACK in VOICE-OVER.
JACK: Oh Ennis, make the lambs stop screaming!
Comment by hank — December 30, 2005 @ 1:26 pm - December 30, 2005
I am a bit bemused by this continuing digression on the politics of anal sex in the film version of Brokeback Mountain, and I have a few observations to offer on that subject.
The first is that the creation of this scene is the author’s, not the screenplay writers’ or the director’s. If we are looking for intentions, that is where we should find them.
(By the way, folks, I highly recommend buying the just re-released booklet of the short story, about $10. A great investment – or gift – that will deepen appreciation of what the film version achieves. It can be read in less time than seeing the film.)
Proulx has created two complex characters who essentially do not know how to comprehend or express their growing, explosive love for one another. The few patterns and metaphors they can find come from the narrow world around them. Ennis and Jack come from humble, broken, even abusive families, and they are not educated – Ennis never makes it to sophomore in high school, as he ruefully notes at one point; what are these ignorant teenage boys going to know about sex, let alone about same-sex sex?
Well, the world of nature and their work around them that Proulx so carefully evokes. Horses, dogs, cattle and sheep and the annual rhythm of life and death in the country. Last I heard sheep don’t go in for rimming, frottage or the finer points of homosexual foreplay – and they have no need of condoms. All of this is well observed by the author; in fact, in the story Proulx has Jack say after their lovemaking at the motel: “Christ, it got to be all that time of yours ahorseback makes it so goddamn good …”
I am reminded of an essay I read years ago by Gore Vidal where he acidly digressed on the sexual lives of the urban middle classes. In it he referred to widely known and accepted research that showed that the higher the educational and socio-economic levels of the participants, the more adventurous and imaginative the sexual activity, capping his discussion with the old joke that when a middle class couple make love, there are at least four people in the room. And as he tartly added, one can only infer that, when the working classes energetically do the same, they think, apparently, of absolutely nothing at all.
My second point is Proulx’s description of their first sexual encounter:
“… Ennis ran full throttle on all roads whether fence mending or money spending, and he wanted none of it when Jack seized his left hand and brought it to his erect cock. Ennis jerked his hand away as though he’s touched fire, got to his knees, unbuckled his belt, shoved his pants down, hauled Jack onto all fours and, with the help of the clear slick and a little spit, entered him, nothing he’d done before but no instruction manual needed. They went at it in silence except for a few sharp intakes of breath and Jack’s choked ‘gun’s goin’ OFF,’ then out, down, and asleep …”
For a rateable screenplay one can see why touching the erection – what would that have led to? – and Jack’s outburst didn’t make the film. But how different is this artfully terse description from what they would see every year in their herds and flocks? And note the metaphor Proulx has Jack use for his orgasm. No instruction manual was needed for this kind of sex, improvised and expressed from what little they knew.
One final point, maybe the decisive one. One of the most moving and beautifully written passages in the story is the memory Proulx has Jack evoke as Ennis drives away from him that last time (oddly set in daytime in the film):
” … What Jack remembered and craved in a way he could neither help nor understand was that distant summer on Brokeback when Ennis had come up behind him and pulled him close, the silent embrace satisfying some shared and sexless hunger.
They had stood that way for a long time in front of the fire, its burning tossing ruddy chunks of light, the shadow of their bodies a single column against the rock. The minutes ticked by from the round watch in Ennis’ pocket, from the sticks in the fire settling into coals. Stars bit through the wavy heat layers above the fire. Ennis’ breath came slow and quiet, he hummed, rocked a little in the sparklight and Jack leaned against the steady heartbeat, the vibrations of the humming like faint electricity and, standing, he fell into sleep that was not sleep but something else drowsy and tranced …
Later, that dozy embrace solidified in his memory as the single moment of artless, charmed happiness in their separate and difficult lives. Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held. And maybe, he thought, they’d never get much further than that. Let be, let be.”
It is the last reference to their eroticism in both story and film, and it mirrors that first encounter: the constant obliquity of Ennis’ approach to Jack, so characteristic of his emotional lock-down with everyone, how he won’t even love his lover face-to-face, so to speak. But how much has now changed even during that summer on the mountain?
I think Proulx has Jack get it wrong. Ennis is now behind him again but a “shared and sexless hunger” is now being satisfied. For both of them. As preparation for the conclusion of the story this detail, placed here, is near genius as Proulx’s Jack, tragically, will never know just how “much further” this love has already affected the inexpressive Ennis, how it will break his life apart even during the years of their furtive encounters ahead and how, after Jack’s death, it will haunt, even arguably deform, the rest of Ennis’ life.
Comment by Thomas — December 30, 2005 @ 1:40 pm - December 30, 2005
-So Ennis’ having sex with Jack is an attempt to eliminate his feelings? -
Yes. A lot of people tend to think if they just do the act, then somehow they will get over what they’re feeling. At that time he certainly doesn’t expect to have a long-term relationship with Jack, it was just a release, a way to get over what he was feeling.
-On the other hand, many Southerners like myself who are gay are more discreet and act “straight” not to compromise ourselves, but because it’s how we were brought up.-
I was born and spent most of my childhood in the South, and moved back there a few years ago. Most of the straight men I knew when I was growing up weren’t exactly polite or demure. Boys were encouraged to be rough. Girls were encouraged to stay in their place. If gay men from the South are meek it’s more because they are terrified of being beaten or killed than because of Southern manners. I also haven’t known a lot of gays who move down to the South and act “in your face”. If anything, most of the gays who move down here are even MORE quiet than gays who were born and raised in the South, because they face the dual obstacle of being gay and being a total outsider to the culture. Gays who move down here do so because they want a different way of life, even if it means being closeted. Gays who are “in your face” usually stay in very liberal areas and would never want to go to the South, even the oases of blue in red states.
Back to the movie, it cracks me up to see Roger Friedman, friend of Miramax, trashing Brokeback Mountain in every column, in-between his breathless spin for Munich. Everyone in Brokeback mumbles! Brokeback is struggling! Brokeback is the rassling gay cowboy movie that isn’t living up to the hype! Go see Munich, which is a hit, unlike Brokeback! He seems terrified of the film, and is probably giving it far more publicity than he realizes. Some of the film critics and elitists are so angered by this movie for not being from the correct studio or not kissing their behind.
I don’t think the movie will ever be a big hit, but I hope the film at least shows Hollywood that they can have gay-themed stories in major films. My only small concern is that we still don’t have a major movie (the only ones are British films from the mid/late 80′s) that gives a happy ending or a storybook romance between gay men. I’d like to see something beyond ga y men being hated and/or murdered.
Comment by Carl — December 30, 2005 @ 2:29 pm - December 30, 2005
I wasn’t moved by the movie at all. In fact, I didn’t care for it. Of course I don’t like gay movies where the characters don’t stand up for themselves and pronounce to the world that they will be happy no matter what everyone else says. I grew up in a small town in Texas and know the bigotry that can occur in such a place. I also stood up and changed a lot of attitudes in this town and in my family. It is never ok to lay down and let “tradition” overule what is right. Jack and Ennis were cowards for not living their lives.
I do want to say something about “Bicentenial Man” : It was the greatest movie ever made. (Next to Legally Blond!) Talk about a character who would not fit into his pidgeon-hole and fought until his last breath. Now there is a hero!!!!
Comment by Mike H. — December 30, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - December 30, 2005
BTW I should mention that I’m not trying to say I know what the author intended with the Jack/Ennis sex scene, I’m only giving my interpretation.
Comment by Carl — December 30, 2005 @ 2:48 pm - December 30, 2005
Most of the sex in the movie has a violent edge. The laconic macho man who can’t access his feelings except through violence is a virtual stereotype. In psychoanalytical thinking, violence is always on the periphery of the sexual encounter and it tends to get especially excited when repression requires extra energy.
The business about bareback sex is silly (though I’ve heard quite a few people claim “brokeback” is an allusion to it). Had a condom been produced, the question of why either of them had one would have to be raised. (Safe sex with sheep?) Moreover, putting it on would have stalled the action, initiating reflection….And of course there’s the issue of history.
Comment by dr. d'claw — December 30, 2005 @ 4:12 pm - December 30, 2005
The New Yorker put the original short-story on it’s web-site earlier this month, but I don’t have the html-address anymore. Anyone a subscriber who knows how to search their archive?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 30, 2005 @ 4:35 pm - December 30, 2005
Calarato, I’m with Dr. d’claw on this one.
Like it or not, bareback sex was what people DID in the 1960s. You have to remember, this movie was set in an era where it was still illegal in some states to sell unmarried individuals contraception. Even if the two characters had wanted to use protection, they may not even have been able to get it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2005 @ 5:57 pm - December 30, 2005
The ending just broke my heart. Ennis has no one left…his wife, his girlfriend, the love of his life and even his daughter is lost to him. Of course, that begs the question of whether anyone of them every had him. You could argue that Jack did but I don’t really think so. Jack was too caught in his own wants to notice that Ennis truly was giving everything he was capable of giving.
I saw a few family members in Ennis. Hard men who love and feel more than anyone can imagine but fundementally incapable of reaching out and admitting to needing anyone. Given the subject matter, the observation surprised me. That, I think, is the beauty of this movie. While watching ‘the gay cowboy movie’ I thought of the men in my own family…trapped within themselves and circumstances that they think are beyond their control.
Comment by cbi — December 31, 2005 @ 12:21 am - December 31, 2005
Why would I want to see this film? Just because it’s about 2 gay guys? So what. I don’t need to pay $9 to see two straight Hollywood actors portray what I experience every day as a real, live gay man (cowboys notwithstanding). Just like I don’t watch “Will and Grace” because everyone expects me to, I aint’ gonna be seeing Broke Back Mountain, either. I’m not a robot. I don’t need to see “gay” films or watch “gay” TV shows or drive “gay” cars or wear “gay” clothes or eat “gay” food just because I’m gay. If it’s a good movie, I’ll go see it. But from what I’ve heard, it’s nothing more than another mediocre chick flick starring two guys – only one of whom is actually talented and worth looking at.
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble out there, but I don’t do “gay” things just because the gay powers-that-be tell me I’m supposed to. And you know what? Neither should you. If you want to go see it, fine. But don’t expect me to support it just because it’s got a gay story line. What doesn’t now days, anyway? So what. Big deal. Get over it.
Comment by glisteny — December 31, 2005 @ 3:16 am - December 31, 2005
#39 Umm. Maybe you shouldn’t see the movie then. Doth protest too much? By the way, almost all of the critics, even the ones that are not “gay,” are saying that it’s more than a mediocre film, with some saying it is the best film, or one of the best films of 2005.
Comment by Pat — December 31, 2005 @ 9:30 am - December 31, 2005
The movie has a really powerful story line and the “gay” part of it is pretty minimal when you finally get caught up in the story. I was wary of how it would be but there is no preaching and no heros in this pic. It was very sad but not so much for tears as for melancholy.
Ennis didn’t do right by anyone in his life, including himself. Jack’s rememberence of earlier and happier times while watching Ennis drive away and Ennis’ wannabe girlfriend breaking down after talking to him at the restaurant were the most personal scenes for me.
Ang Lee and these actors have all my respect.
Comment by VinceTN — December 31, 2005 @ 9:54 am - December 31, 2005
Wow. A lot of people want to say something on this barebacking thing.
To the argument “They showed it because the author wrote the story that way”: That’s great – but, we all know directors never hesitate to change the story, in ways small as well as large. It seems like a fig leaf of an excuse.
To the argument “Why should it be any different from straight movies, which often show their intercourse?”: Gee, if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you follow? Just because X number of movies show something, doesn’t lessen the significance or intentionality of it being shown in the next movie.
Sex in movies is, or rather, has sadly become, a venal marketing ploy. A cheap manipulation. And I find that boring (my real point).
In addition, to have the barebacking as a positive key turning point in a movie, with gorgeous actors and lots of hot drama turning around it, is glamorization and not something the gay male “community” really needs more of. I mean, as if there hasn’t been enough in gay-themed films already – LOL.
Final comment about the acting -
I agree Heath Ledger was fabulous (and said as much in #19). The rest of the cast was, well, mixed. Sorry, guys, but I’m hard pressed to remember a better example of the “armchair-gnawing” school of inept acting than some of Jake G’s screen time where he is attempting to establish his character to the audience (us) as a REAL COWBOY.
Comment by Calarato — December 31, 2005 @ 1:23 pm - December 31, 2005
#37 – Completely misses my point, NDT.
I’m not claiming for 1 single second that they should have used protection.
Rather, I’m questioning the motives – and frankly, the artistic merit or lack thereof – of the Director’s choice in putting it in the film.
Comment by Calarato — December 31, 2005 @ 1:35 pm - December 31, 2005
You would have to examine the contracts to discover just how much control Mr. Lee had. Does he even have final cut? Who did the screenplay?
Remember, that directors (even famous ones ) are really only hired hands. They answer to someone, who may also answer to someone. The riders on a Hollywood contract are labyrinthian.
Comment by hank — December 31, 2005 @ 1:35 pm - December 31, 2005
I am a black gay man that has no desire to see BBM! I am sure it is a good movie that will get many oscar nominations but I don’t want to see straight men playing gay anymore!
BBM was never intended to be a wide release movie anyway so what the hell was so wrong with getting two gay men to do the part! I am sure liberal Hollywood wouldn’t care anyway since BBM is not excepted to make Titanic money at the boxoffice.
I’ll wait for the DVD to come to the dollar store before I will see it.
By the way, I am not being negative about the movie but I just don’t believe this movie is the be all end all for Gay Rights, Gay Cowboys, Gay Coming Out, Gay Lost Loves or any other igay ssues we have going on today!
Also, wouldn’t this movie be more courageous if it had an all gay cast?
Comment by Andrew — December 31, 2005 @ 3:03 pm - December 31, 2005
Glisteny…. you might want to address these anger issues.
Comment by Come On! — December 31, 2005 @ 7:40 pm - December 31, 2005
#42 Calarato, you brought up the issue of the movie glamorizing barebacking, and most of us countered your point. You addressed some of the comments, but not mine. In any case, we will probably never know for sure if Ang Lee’s point was to glamorize barebacking. But assuming that is the case, I think we all in the gay community have to take some responsibility here and say times were different in the 60s, it was before AIDS, and this doesn’t mean that barebacking is okay today.
BBM is an excellent movie, but it is just a movie. To kind of repeat a point you were making, if the movie glamorized jumping off a cliff, I hope everyone in the gay community would take some responsibility and decide to not jump off a cliff.
Comment by Pat — January 1, 2006 @ 8:18 am - January 1, 2006
LOL….but I have the feeling that, as I’ve wryly said before, if Jerry Falwell and/or James Dobson came out against drinking drain cleaner, three-quarters of the gay community would be dead within a week.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2006 @ 9:42 am - January 1, 2006
BBM is an excellent movie. It persuaded me to try barebacking for the first time – which was cool – but I don’t want to see Australians playing Americans anymore! What the hell was so wrong with getting a real American to play Ennis Del Mar!
I haven’t seen AI – just like I didn’t watch Bicentennial Man, because everyone expects me to, I ain’t gonna be seeing Robots on DVD, either. I’m not a clone!
Comment by T1000 — January 1, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - January 1, 2006
#47 – Pat – There were a lot of comments – Sorry if I have forgotten your point.
“…if Ang Lee’s point was to glamorize barebacking…” Pat, I have never claimed that about the movie!! – Only that I personally found the movie’s (thankfully brief) bareback glamorization moment predictable and boring.
Overall – This is probably a dead thread by now, but in case anyone is still reading it – over at IGF, Stephen Miller’s comments on Brokeback were quite interesting: http://www.indegayforum.org/culturewatch/2005_12_11_archive.shtml#113482660771199407
Comment by Calarato — January 2, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - January 2, 2006
38: I don’t agree that his daughter is lost to him. She comes to him at the end to get him to come to her wedding. At first he says no….using the “work” excuse he gave Jack for not getting together in August. He then relents and says he will come. Not only does this make Alma Jr. happy, but Ennis allows himself to actually enjoy it – something he’s denied himself throughout the film.
This action, coupled with saving the shirts, putting up the postcard and ending the story with the line “Jack, I swear…” (translates to Jack, I love you) is the perfect example of why a tragic story is much more emotionally satisfying than a funny story.
PS – Anyone happen to notice the reversal of the shirts? When Ennis finds them, Jack’s shirt is wrapped around Ennis’ shirt. When we last see them, it is now Ennis’ shirt that is wrapped around Jack’s.
Comment by Kevin — January 2, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - January 2, 2006
Horsefeathers!
Comment by David Ehrenstein — January 2, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - January 2, 2006
51
I was looking at how little Ennis knew about his daughter and how uninvolved he was in her life. Now, she’s about to get married and will be starting a new chapter. If she’s like most newlyweds that doesn’t include lots of quality time with the folks. But that’s just my cynic’s take on the matter. That said, I like your interpretation better!
PS. I didn’t catch that with the shirts..guess that means seeing it again. Damn the luck.
Comment by cbi — January 2, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - January 2, 2006
#50 Then maybe we’re just having a semantics argument then. I would simply say the movie depicted bareback sex, and made it crystal clear that this took place in 1963. I don’t believe there was any intent in saying that in 2005, we should all start barebacking.
Comment by Pat — January 3, 2006 @ 9:31 am - January 3, 2006
Well, while we are catching tiny details … who else noticed that, when Ennis embraces the shirts at Jack’s house, the crook of the coat hanger silhouetts a perfect – and utterly appropriate – question mark against his face? In the story, the entwined shirts are hung on a nail. Like the reversed shirts, that’s sharp film making.
Over at andrewsullivan.com, I see Ross Douthat has now shared his thoughts on seeing the film. His argument is interesting in that he thinks people are missing the real agenda of the film – a moral and philosophical one, and deeply subversive, that explores the relative merits of heterosexuality (not straightness) and homosexuality (not gayness), with heterosexuality the real loser. I think he is right in that there are no positive heterosexual men in the film (Jack’s father? Alma’s second husband?), but wrong in caricaturing heterosexual marriage as wholly bleak. Both Jack’s and Ennis’ marriages begin positively; and there is no hint that his daughter’s marriage will fail. And, who knows, Ennis may have found happiness with the waitress – if he weren’t Ennis.
Douthat’s overall point, though, is provocative: that same sex love is always shown as higher, more pure and noble than the love between man and woman. And more honestly masculine. If only Jack and Ennis could just go off to live by themselves on that mountain, leaving women and civilization behind! This more or less evokes Plato’s Symposium. And the ironies are obvious, too. The author is a (presumably) straight, ahem, woman; the director, actors, writers, producers straight as well. Oh, my goodness!
And my tip for most subversive part of the film in this sense? Ennis, Alma and the little girls at the Fourth of July fireworks display. In perfect character Ennis beats the shit out of two fat, foul-mouthed, sexist bikers – more positive heterosexuals! – and then is magnificently silhouetted against red, white and blue explosions as the iconic American male, The Cowboy, symbolizing all that is moral, honest and good about this country. And yet the only person he really loves is another man. Again, not a hint of this scene in the story. Just brilliant screenwriting and directing. Wow!
Comment by Thomas — January 3, 2006 @ 10:36 am - January 3, 2006
I really liked the film. It helped that it had been spoiled for me to some extent in that I knew it was not going to have a happy ending, so I was prepared for that; not that it would have been an incredible surprise. I am even inclined to see it again.
I felt really sad for everyone in the movie that was hurt by the environment of ignorance surrounding their love, including their families, and particularly Ennis’ wife. It’s not that people are purposefully trying to hurt anyone. They just really don’t understand it. The bigots don’t understand it, which I think is at the root of most bigotry. Even Ennis and Jack don’t really understand it. The oppressive environment that compelled them to marry against their natures grew out of that ignorance. It didn’t feel like the movie was trying to villianize anyone. Even the gay bashers were just faceless strangers that grew out of that environment. It felt like a true tragedy in that sense because there was no one to direct the anger at. I think Ennis expresses that frustration when he finds obscure targets for his violent outbursts. The many peolpe suffering in this movie for the most part seemed like innocent victims. The wives were innocent victims as well and seemed to suffer a similar lonliness as Jack and Ennis.
I have to say I’m baffled by the obsession and the sidetracking taking place with the “bareback” scene. Ennis spitting in his hand and finishing in seconds was not glamorous, romantic, or even erotic. There may have been tender or romantic moments later, but that was not one of them. I think the scene was meant to demonstrate how animal their initial attraction was. It was something powerful and instinctual that overwhelmed them until they couldn’t fight it anymore. To cut it out would have been dishonest and maybe even a bit cowardly. About eight people got up and left the Atlanta theater I was in during that scene. I couldn’t help but wonder if they knew what the film was about going in. It seems like there has been so much coverage that you can’t help but know there will be some explicit depiction of gay sex. The term “bareback” is a modern term that doesn’t even really apply in a discussion about a film of this era. To argue about whether they should have engaged in some other act their first time seems silly to me. I don’t think they needed it to market the film to gay people and if they meant to, it probably would have shown more. Leaving it out would have made it more appealing to the broader audience (maybe those eight people wouldn’t have walked out) but that’s why I think it would be cowardly to cut it.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — January 3, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - January 3, 2006
53: Don’t see it again! The Hollywood Gay Mafia is out to get your hard earned money!!! Love? Passion? Real Human warmth? No, I say, NO! This movie has a lead character who mumbled his way through most of the film, artsy little “touches” you might miss even after seeing it 3 or 4 times and a very confusing story-line. All of these are the *real* reasons why people are going back to see it: they just couldn’t figure out what was going on! Don’t give in I say!! If you want to experience real love, stay home and listen to an old copy of “I’ve Never Been to Me” over and over and over and over and over and over and over………
heh heh heh
PS – I have a feeling that those folks over at Exodus International are just peeing their pants trying to stop their members from seeing this film. One showing to them all and that group would be OUTTA HERE!
Comment by Kevin — January 3, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - January 3, 2006
I’m so sorry #54. It is too late. The Gay Mafia has received more of my money today. Not only will I pay to see Brokeback again but tonight I went and saw ‘The Producers.’ I could just hang my head in shame. How could I let them scam me out of more?!?! But on the plus side…tonight’s movie was fun, very silly and oh so campy. It was great.
But on the down side, I’m not Nathan Lane’s type. Yes, I know he’s old enough to be my father and a little plump (Not that fat!) but he’s so darn cute. Sometimes a straight girl can’t win for losing.
Comment by cbi — January 4, 2006 @ 1:06 am - January 4, 2006
Jeez..#58 is actually referring to #57 not #54. Clearly it’s time for me to get some sleep or learn to read and count.
Comment by cbi — January 4, 2006 @ 1:09 am - January 4, 2006
The fact that so many of you are sitting in front of your computers ‘analyzing’ this supposedly Greatest-Movie-of-the-Milennium like a middle school class ham-handedly disecting ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is either hilarious or sad. YOU ARE ADULTS…IT’S A MOVIE…GROW UP.
And to say that the “critics” loved it is about as meaningful as observing that football fans love watching football. No kidding.
Comment by glisteny — January 4, 2006 @ 2:29 am - January 4, 2006
60: Go to brokebackmountainmovie.com and click on “share your stories”. Or check the discussion boards on it at imdb.com. It may be just a film, but it’s stirred some sort of deep resonance in many people who have seen it, moreso than any film I can recall. Even the most hardened people I know have had some sort of positive emotional reaction to this movie.
We might all busy ourselves with our lives, whether straight, gay, conservative, liberal, etc, moving around day to day, meeting all kinds of people with various reactions to them, forming various types of relationships with them. It seems though, that almost everyone out there has come across at least one person who had a truly profound effect on their life, even though it might not have been recognized as such. Maybe a good buddy, friend, short affair, or (if you’re really lucky) the one person you get to share your life with in some way. Maybe too much analyzing going on, but I think it only comes from the deep emotions that it’s stirred. And that ain’t coming from just critics.
Comment by Kevin — January 4, 2006 @ 5:38 am - January 4, 2006
Kevin, when a movie that is excellent and groundbreaking in many ways, analysis like this by adults is normal and for a good discussion, not just of the movie, but how it applies in real life. By the way, I have no problem with people who don’t like the movie, even those who don’t even plan on seeing it for whatever reason, but scratch my head when one has to throw a wet blanket on it.
Comment by Pat — January 4, 2006 @ 8:23 am - January 4, 2006
Yes, especially those who haven’t seen it.
Comment by hank — January 4, 2006 @ 8:43 am - January 4, 2006
#54 – No Pat – What I’m saying is:
(1) The intent for 2005 was that gay men should look at it and go “Ooooh…. bareback…. 1960 guys could and would…. hot!!!” I.e., that it was calculated and, as with nearly all current-day movie sex, calculated for venal (demographic & marketing) reasons.
And,
(2) These little moments glamorizing bareback are about the last thing the gay male community needs more of.
At this point I’m repeating myself, but it seems to be necessary in terms of folks not getting what I said.
Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 4, 2006
It didn’t look very “glamorous” to me. It looked rough and brief.
Comment by hank — January 4, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - January 4, 2006
You seem to be obsessing over that scene, Calatro. Maybe there really is nothing to get. This thing seems to exist for you a lot more so than others. Are you perhaps projecting something onto this movie that is troubling you?
Comment by Dale in L.A. — January 4, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - January 4, 2006
No Dale. I’m just trying to be a responsible participant in the discussion – answering a point people had asked – answering continued misunderstandings of my statements as people keep expressing them.
Being responsible to people is OK with you, I hope?
Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - January 4, 2006
Cal, I like you and I am just trying to discuss. I just wanted to say that up front because I know that written back-and-forth discussions can have emotions read into them that aren’t there.
Anyhoo, you made the point that they glamorized barebacking with that scene and even with the title. Lots of people disagreed with you. You characterized their disagreement as “folks not getting what I said” and therefore feel the need to repeat yourself. You can continue to argue the point of course, but given that most of the people who saw the film don’t seem to have interpreted the title or that scene as “glamorizing barebacking”, there really may not be something to get.
Maybe that scene was particularly unsettling for you because barebacking is such a phenomenally stupid thing that gay men continue to do despite the stupidity of it. I can understand that, I suppose. I can understand and even share your frustration with a culture of unhealthy behavior in the gay community. Still, it appears that most people did not find the scene to be glamorous and it was honest and in context. Out of all the things going on in this dramatic film, it seems a little silly to me for this one brief scene to sidetrack so much of the discussion.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — January 4, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - January 4, 2006
No Dale.
It really wasn’t unsettling for me. I enjoyed it, in fact!
Then what’s my point? – See #64. That’s really it. Peace.
Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - January 4, 2006
Oh, and one other thing:
All I did was make one little comment about it, originally!
Ever since then, I’ve just been responding to others’ emotional reactions to, and misinterpretations of, my comment. (Trying to be responsible.) I have no great, positive interest of my own in discussing that one point. OK?
Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - January 4, 2006
(sigh…..And for clarity, or to head off yet more objections: All people have 2 major parts to their brain, and “animal brain”, and a “neocortex” where the higher human values and cognitive functions come from. In saying “I enjoyed it”, I mean specifically that my animality enjoyed it, while at the same time, from my higher self I recognized the manipulation – the filmmaker’s venal and predictable appeal to gay men’s animal sides – something that both American culture in general, and gay male culture in particular, does a lot of.)
Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - January 4, 2006
I am so impressed with this blog. I can’t believe how much information is here. This is part of my top 10 blogs.Very good job.
Comment by cheap cellular phones rates — March 3, 2006 @ 9:09 am - March 3, 2006
Great input. In fact I would go as far as saying your 101% right on. Others may disagree but I certainly do not
Comment by ionic breeze air purifiers — March 29, 2006 @ 10:44 am - March 29, 2006
Very impressive web site. I 100% agree
, of that is my opinion. Keep the content coming.Keep it real 
.
Comment by jammie — May 1, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - May 1, 2006