Does Australia Have Gay Cowboys, Too?
Our blog-ally Down Under, John Heard (aka – Dreadnought) had this positive take on Brokeback Mountain in this January 30 column in The Australian, one of that country’s biggest publications.
What do we have to fear from this film? Is it irrational or unworthy or corrupt? Does it attack and tear down or does it exalt the human spirit and mark out, for once and for as long as our popular entertainments continue to capture the imagination of the masses, a space for men who love — sometimes despite hardship, wives, children and duty — other men?
Perhaps more interesting is the fact that by portraying ranch hands rather than Mardi Gras-ready homo-activists, Proulx via Lee has presented perhaps the first real gay characters in a zone too often crowded with walking stereotypes. Ennis Del Mar couldn’t tzuz to save his life, and no wonder, as Michael Kirby is fond of saying: homosexuals are as boring as everyone else.
Who, after all, could reasonably object to this film? Certainly not the good, hard men of the midwest, who’d be the first to reject any prissification of their livelihoods; they’ve already given it their seal of approval. Not even serious Christian reviewers see it as a threat. They’d be on the lookout too, for unworthy storylines and the anti-Christian heavy-handedness that often characterises modern films. No, the only people who need regret Brokeback Mountain are the dry of heart, the irredeemably bitter and those who see love and know only fear.
Even so, I defy them to watch this film and come away unmoved. For anyone who has seen it cannot let it rest. Brokeback stays with you and it will stay with our culture, long after any silly objections have fallen back into obscurity.
While we differ on the content of the film, I do agree with John’s conclusions: I also defy anyone to watch the movie and come away unmoved. It was a moving piece. I just didn’t think it was the masterpiece that it is being hailed as. But hey, my favorite movie of all time starred a DeLorean.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
39 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
But hey, my favorite movie of all time starred a DeLorean.
That being so, Bruce, I trust you have seen the Brokeback to the Future trailer?
Comment by V the K — February 23, 2006 @ 8:16 am - February 23, 2006
Darn, V the K beat me to it!
Comment by Fausta — February 23, 2006 @ 8:47 am - February 23, 2006
You may want to reconsider John “Dreadnought” Heard’s status as an “ally”. He is very clear that men with “same sex attraction” should not act on it sexually and that to do so is a sin. His viewpoint is proudly identical to that of the Pope. If that’s the kind of ally you want, GP, then maybe you have some re-thinking of your own to do.
Comment by EssEm — February 23, 2006 @ 9:46 am - February 23, 2006
#3 – SM, I think the point the reviewer is trying to make is that both men had spouses whom they cheated on, and such a thing should not be “acted upon” because of the sacrament of matrimony. These are marriage vows, not suggestions.
Of course, the way liberals see anything under oath (consider our former president), it always has an “escape clause.”
Personally, I thought the movie was fine, but definitely NOT a masterpiece. That designation goes to “Memoirs of a Geisha,” IMHO.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 23, 2006 @ 10:45 am - February 23, 2006
Thanks SM. I just read several of his posts. UGH!
Comment by hank — February 23, 2006 @ 10:57 am - February 23, 2006
in australia, I forget the name of the folk singer, but there is a singer who has a song, that I understand, is rather popular called “the drovers boy”
Basicaly the song is about a cattle drover, who was in charge of a team, and he kept a “boy.” The song is actually about the not at all long dead practice of aboriginal slavery, however it is interesting that it was more accepted, (in context of the song) for the Drover to keep an aboriginal Boy, than the young aboriginal woman he “fell in love” with.
Comment by wickedpinto — February 23, 2006 @ 11:13 am - February 23, 2006
Peter H, that’s certainly part of the tension in the movie and I don’t fault anyone for taking it up. [My own reaction to BBM was neither moral nor political, simply emotional]. One of the changes that the scriptwriters made to the shortstory was to flesh out the women characters, and you see the damage that they share in more clearly. My point was that JHeard, as a matter of principle, condemns sex between men, regardless of whether they are married or not. I have read his blog many times and that point is clear, quite aside from his movie review. He is a very orthodox Roman Catholic on this matter. And that position of his was the reason for my comment. To regard a man with such principles as a “blog-ally” of GP…well, then what does an ally mean?
Comment by EssEm — February 23, 2006 @ 11:33 am - February 23, 2006
When I read John Heard’s comments, once again, I can’t believe the “old gay mentality” that he and so many reviewers seem to be stuck in. It’s like being in an 80s time warp.
First, WHO is “afraid” of Brokeback Mountain? WHO is objecting to it because, basically, they are unable to handle the idea of love between men?
Not even Christian reviewers are stuck in that anymore, that I know of. I’m sure somebody can come up with one Christian reviewer, here or there, who is equally as stuck in the past as John Heard. I don’t claim to have exhaustive knowledge. I’m only saying, they haven’t exactly been in my face. I can’t name them.
On the other hand – WHY imagine that Brokeback is primarily about “love” between men? One character is emotionally frozen. The other is basically infantile. I would think that, by 2006, we had become psychologically and morally sophisticated enough to understand that “need” is not really quite the same as love (though it seems like love to the people involved).
Let me put it this way: Ten years from now, nobody is going to remember Brokeback as one of the all-time great love stories. It’s kind of pretty; kind of moving; and ultimately, as artworks go, kind of low-priority or forgettable.
But, I think for political reasons, Brokeback is “everywhere” right now and we have to read 1980-style commentary which projects/imagines that anyone who is less-than-impressed with Brokeback must be “afraid” of it, lol.
Comment by Calarato — February 23, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - February 23, 2006
we have to read 1980-style commentary which projects/imagines that anyone who is less-than-impressed with Brokeback must be “afraid” of it, lol.
Kind of like DSH/Stephen accusing anyone who disagrees with him of engaging in “ad hominem” attacks.
Comment by V the K — February 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - February 23, 2006
Our favorite blog diva has Bareback Mountin’ cartoons.
Comment by V the K — February 23, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - February 23, 2006
Or gay lefties accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being homophobic, (if gay) self-hating, etc.
We could go on
Comment by Calarato — February 23, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - February 23, 2006
P.S. Part of where I am coming from here, is that I desperately wish I could see a movie which IS about love between men. The real thing – elements of real heroism and overcoming adversity.
The great gay love story that people want to pretend Brokeback is, is yet to be made. (Note: Classical and Medieval culture had a couple of truly heroic gay stories here and there, but they’re probably too antique / far removed / forgotten to be revived today.)
Comment by Calarato — February 23, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - February 23, 2006
“Of course, the way liberals see anything under oath (consider our former president), it always has an “escape clause.”
That would explain why the red states lead the nation in divorce rates.
Anyway, Calarato, the story is about real love. It is just that that love was crippled. I just came form a discussion over at another blog about this; in a lot of ways the BBM is a Chinese movie. A Chinese director presents a typical Chinese love story – doomed love, hopelessly sad, emotions more and more parlyzed. Very Chinese use of the landscape as a character, too.
Crippled love – remember the background and childhoods of the charcters too – both had reptiles for fathers and there isn’t any sign of any other influence for real love in their lives.
To the main tpoic – the writer [may] indeed be anti-gay. All the better, if someone like him is moved to write something like this. This is as good as Elton John getting M&M to perform with him.
Comment by Jim — February 23, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - February 23, 2006
I would be happy if someone could explain the massive appeal of this movie to me. Not only are most gay men smitten with it, but it has a huge fan base of heterosexual women. My own partner has seen it four times and operates a popular blog about it. I keep asking him to articulate why he’s so taken with it and he gets tongue-tied. Maybe it’s Jake’s butt and he doesn’t wanna say so.
Far from departing from stereotypes, I think it accommodates them, at least in terms of form. It seems like any gay movie with even slight crossover appeal has to have a tragic or unhappy ending.
As someone who was married to a woman before coming out, I also found the treatment of women and the predicament of married gay men highly stereotyping. People do suffer a lot of pain in such relationships but I’m not sure it’s a more grievous pain than the many other sorts that can visit a relationship. The film seems to presume that gay men who marry don’t really love love their wives and that’s also a fiction. I certainly fell deeply in love with my own wife. (And, yeah, I know it can be argued that this just isn’t the case with these two characters, but most reviewing of the film generalizes this to the entire population of married gay or bisexual men.)
Also, the image of the emotionally inarticulate cowboy is also a stereotype as is the mnachismo he embodies, impersonated in gay two-step clubs all across America. There’s also something annoyingly cliche-bound about the 19th century notion of nature the film exploits, comparing it to the claustrophobic homes of the characters’ married lives. The women want dinettes; the men want campfires.
I found the movie aesthetically appealing but I was not moved in the way I am by great works of art. This surprised me. I carried Kleenex!
I do wonder if what’s ultimately moving to people is the film’s message that the heart’s liberation depends on an act of will, that love denied destroys more surely than love expressed. I think that remains a mystery to many gay men who still would rather “fit in” than confront the question of what it means to love in a culture still hostile to same-sex desire. But I ain’t know.
Comment by JwGreen — February 23, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - February 23, 2006
Please consider the year in which the movie was set. They seem like stereotypes today. But back then, given where they were living, they were probably the norm.
Comment by hank — February 23, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - February 23, 2006
This is a bit off topic, but I was wondering, did Bill O’Reilly ever see Brokeback Mountain? I keep reading reports of how he’s trashing the movie, but no evidence of actually seeing it. Most recently it seemed he had Harry Hamlin (star of “Making Love” from 1982) who talked about how playing gay killed his movie career.
Comment by Kevin — February 23, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - February 23, 2006
Kevin… of course O’Reilly is not going to see this movie, but will use it in his made up “Culture Wars” pieces (December is a long way away).
On the other hand, produce a movie about a loud mouth “news” (used the term News very loosely) “reporter” ( used the tern Reporter very loosely) sexually harrassing someone with a bath sponge… NOW THAT IS MAINSTREAM AMERICA!
Comment by Skippy — February 23, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - February 23, 2006
15 – quite true. I remember 1963, and those “stereotypes” applied to suburban California. I imagine they were pretty true for rural Wyoming too.
That cowboy inarticulateness seemed a response to the landscape more than machismo. Maybe that’s all the more Englsih Ang Lee could handle. Who knows? The women were fairly reticent too, as I remember.
Comment by Jim — February 23, 2006 @ 7:15 pm - February 23, 2006
#13
You have to get married before you can get a divorce. When you wander around fucking everythig that moves instead of getting married, you’re pretty safe from having to go through a divorce.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 24, 2006 @ 1:22 am - February 24, 2006
#17
Huh? I wasn’t aware O’Reilly was a still a reporter. I’ll be damned.
Further, considerig the fact that you don’t even have to be in the same room with a woman to be nailed with “sexual harrassment”, as I’ve experienced (the gay card got me out), I’m not impressed.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 24, 2006 @ 1:29 am - February 24, 2006
I’m Hetero, but I found a PROFOUND! kinsmanship with the story contained in the movie “three of hearts” I think thats the name, with the baby baldwin, and two others.
Sexual proclivity might be fundamental in BASIC, but there is a nature of love that denies the “basics.” It’s not a “love” story in the sense that two men are begging for the flesh colonoscopy, but rather it is a true expression of physical preference, and transfers it to the emotional point.
Of course this wasn’t beloved, because a republican wasn’t president, and it created a grey area about the combination of physical and emotional love. The story consists of a closeted homosexual male, a masoginistic (in attitude) male, and a terrorfied female who wants just what she wants. (if you look at it, it’s really anti feminist.) and throughout the movie, the gay man comes out to the woman who has been harrassing him, the hetero female, to hurt the gay, outs the gay to his hetero best friend, in the end, though the hetero man can’t be physical with the gay man, he can love him in a somewhat physical way.
My point, I haven’t seen brokeback, don’t really care to, cuz the insinuation is gratuitous. However, That movie, “three of hearts” was a somewhat funny, but MUCH more complex story about the things that EVERYONE goes through. Like I said, I’m a hetero, but I can EASILY put myself in baldwins position at the end of the movie, because, my friends are my friends, and If I love them, I have to allow for something.
Comment by wickedpinto — February 24, 2006 @ 1:47 am - February 24, 2006
#3 if I understand correctly, John Heard is a gay man who chooses to be celibate because of his religious convictions. What is wrong with that? Shouldn’t it be up to him whether he has sex with men, women, or nobody at all? I think expecting or requiring any gay man to be sexually active before you approve of him is as reprehensible as expecting him to turn straight.
Comment by Conservative Guy — February 24, 2006 @ 4:32 am - February 24, 2006
#22 — I don’t think there is anything wrong with choosing to be celibate. I think a lot of people feel threatened by that choice of lifestyle. Our culture is saturated with the message that sexual gratification is the most important thing there is, and when a person chooses to go against that it’s kind of a secular apostasy.
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 5:37 am - February 24, 2006
Anyway, to brighten your Friday, this is even funnier than the Brokeback to the Future trailer.
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 7:14 am - February 24, 2006
VdaK, “secular apostasy” is right. And for many in the GayLeft “gay without sex” isn’t being gay… it’s being self-loathing, homophobic, suspect of your inner core, incomplete, and flawed. I’ve got friends who extend that view even to guys who express disgust for circuit parties as the model of “true” gay-dom. Nice insight.
And in all my conversations outside the community, I have yet to find a single str8 person who went to BB in A2. And to some, we’re the only liberal oasis on the continent between Marin and Boston.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 24, 2006 @ 7:15 am - February 24, 2006
Thank you, Matt. That’s so affirming of you. I was beginning to doubt my self-worth after Rag and jwGreen’s harsh criticism.
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 9:11 am - February 24, 2006
I don’t care what he does or doesn’t do with his dick. It’s the preachy, “holier than thou” crap on his website that puts me off.
Comment by hank — February 24, 2006 @ 11:05 am - February 24, 2006
Matt Foreman (NGLTF) Has No Sense of Humor
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, says he’s sick of (Brokeback Mountain jokes): “It may be funny, but there is a real element of homophobia. It’s making jabs about sex between gay men.”
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 11:59 am - February 24, 2006
hank, you can criticize someone for being preachy or condescending or evidencing an unwarranted self-assessed superiority of opinion WITH A STR8 FACE? “Kettle calling pot. Kettle calling pot. Come in Pot.”
That’s rich coming from you, dude. (Oops, sorry for the “dude”, dude.)
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 24, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - February 24, 2006
Just to piss off Matt Foreman further: Top Gun 2: Brokeback Squadron
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - February 24, 2006
#29
You’re just an insufferable little shit aren’t you?
I’ve never even addressed a comment to you, except to respond to your insults.
Comment by hank — February 24, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - February 24, 2006
VdaK, you know you’re skirting toward a butt-whipping if you keep hassling the GayLeft’s posterboi Matt Foreman. Matt’s got a mean left hook when he isn’t sipping a pink Cosmo. You should see what he did to HIS hunting partner last week; it makes Cheney’s attempt at enhancing his manly image with the press look tame by comparison.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 24, 2006 @ 1:51 pm - February 24, 2006
hank, once again Kettle calling the pot. I’ll spare you a witty French saying, tho.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 24, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - February 24, 2006
I don’t care what he does or doesn’t do with his dick. It’s the preachy, “holier than thou” crap on his website that puts me off.
So quit reading his web site.
Comment by Conservative Guy — February 24, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - February 24, 2006
# 22 & #23 Dreadnought Heard’s not celibate. Read his site. He’s coy about it, but clearly references his occasional falls from the narrow path. But he does hold in principle, not simply as his private opinion, that for a man to have sex with another man is immoral and sinful. It’s not a matter of personal preference for him, or whether circuit parties or leathermen or Pride parades are a good idea, it’s the natural law and it applies to everyone. Why that would enable him still to be a “blog-ally” of Gay Patriot is a quite reasonable question, it seems to me. It’s his principled moral stance that provokes this, not his personal choices, semi-choices or otherwise. Why wouldn’t Pat Robertson then qualify as an ally as well? Or Benedict XVI, whose ethics Dreadnought Heard enthusiastically and completely takes up?
Comment by EssEm — February 25, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - February 25, 2006
#34
I did. And you’re right.
But try and read some of it yuo can stand it.
He’screated a web justifications for being gay. None with which the Church agrees.
Comment by hank — February 26, 2006 @ 9:39 am - February 26, 2006
a web”of”
did it again
Comment by hank — February 26, 2006 @ 10:14 am - February 26, 2006
Been away several days… Too late for anyone to care about this comment… But what the heck…
I missed (or I didn’t check) who John Heard is the first time around, with his whole “Catholicism is right and my sex acts are always sinful although I may still do them” approach.
Knowing that, his review (being what it is) makes a tiny bit more sense to me now. It’s been my experience that people with that kind of built-in conflict about their own sex activity tend to form wild emotional attachments to certain “romantic” movies, to not understand the “need vs. love” issue that I mentioned in #8, etc.
I’m fumbling here – or not sure WHY, or what the connection is; only that I’ve observed some connection. Perhaps sexual guilt plays a role?
#14 – JwGreen, I didn’t think I would agree with most of your comments – but here we are, wow!
#13 – Jim – OK, the “Chinese movie” thing is making sense. Didn’t Ang Lee make _Raise the Red Lantern_, or some such? Perhaps the only way left to make a Chinese (i.e., “crippled love”) movie and sell it to an American audience, is to set it with homosexuals. And I still say, that’s gay-negative. (so why all the gay support for this movie?)
Comment by Calarato — February 28, 2006 @ 7:15 pm - February 28, 2006
Hey I was just surfing around and decided to post a short comment here. I run a movie review message board and am looking for people to write reviews and contribute at my forum. You can even post a link to your blog on your signature file at my forum. It’s all good! Take care.
Comment by Watching TV — March 31, 2006 @ 12:15 am - March 31, 2006