On Brokeback Mountain
You know it had to happen eventually. Virtually every blog authored by a gay man has done a post (or a few) on Brokeback Mountain. This is a blog, and I’m about a hundred ninety pounds of pure homo (well maybe 95% pure, if I’m at Hooters) so this is my obligatory Brokeback post (The elf stories from December don’t count. That was just me being goofy and horny). This is my take on various things Brokeback. Now, I am several months behind everyone else on this, but that is because I did not go see the movie until just before the Oscars. Literally. I walked out of the theater about a half hour before the Oscars began. But my slight obsession with it started back in the fall when all the hype began.
Actually, when I first heard about it, I really didn’t pay much attention. I certainly didn’t make any plans to see the movie. For one thing, I’m not somebody who goes to the movies that much. I generally see stuff after it comes out on cable. And for another thing, I thought at the time that it was a chick flick romance movie. Definitely not my thing. Gay, straight, or interplanetary, I’m just not into romance movies. And I doubted that it would play in any theaters around here. (Even if it did, it would probably not last for very long or happen any time soon).
On Heath and Jake |
After I discovered that the story was a lot more than a romance, my interest started to grow. My interest (and something else of mine) sort of doubled when I found out that Jake Gyllenhaal was in it. He has always been sort of like flour in gravy for me (a thickener). Then I found out the other one was Heath Ledger, who has never done it for me. And I didn’t ever recall being that impressed with his acting. I think the best thing I had seen him in was The Patriot. But how hard is it to look like a good actor next to Mel Gibson? So my interest (as well as something else) softened a bit. That is, until I saw this picture. It is my favorite of all the movie stills I have seen. I can’t even articulate what I like about it. The casual ruggedness? The electric smile? The candid easiness? I don’t know. But it completely turned me around on Heath Ledger. And the thought of casual, easy, rugged, candid, electric Heath Ledger tumbling with Jake Gyllenhaal…well, I had to see this movie. Look, I’m a guy and visual things make guy’s dick hard. So, give me a break.
On The Book |
As a little Christmas present to myself, I ordered a copy of the story the movie is based on (thanks, Amazon!) and it arrived about a week after Christmas (Thanks a lot, Amazon!). The writing style wasn’t like anything I had ever read before and it was amazing. It was very colorful and poetic and, at the same time, very simple (as in not pretentious) and raw…which is all very fitting. The locations of the story are colorful and poetic and the two main characters are simple and raw. Annie Proulx, who wrote the story, said so much with so few words. So few, in fact, I wondered how in the world they had managed to turn this 40 page story into a 2 hour movie.
On The Film |
So, two months later, I finally found out. All I can say is I have never seen a movie that was based on a book where I have been so satisfied with both. Usually I prefer the book to the movie (except for The Talented Mr. Ripley, which bored me to tears reading it. I’m glad I saw the movie first in that case) but both are exceptional here. What struck me most was that Brokeback deals with so much more than sexuality and romance. It was more more about what it means to be a man and the roles men take on. These guys were having to wrestle with and find balance in being provider, protector, lover, supporter, father, son, husband, friend, competitor, boss, etc. I think all men, straight, gay, or bisexual, walk this tight rope, and often fall off from time to time. So, I think to look at this movie as a gay love story is way too simple. And I think to look at it as merely a comment on the oppressiveness and narrow-mindedness of society does the whole thing a disservice. Those two elements are very strong and central (and essential) to the story, but the theme goes so much further. Just look at the way the men in the movie interact with each other. The homosexual element only amplifies the dysfunction.
I think those are the real reasons that Brokeback manages to touch gay men and straight men (those who can let their guard down and actually see it). It validates so much of what men feel and won’t talk about. And that is supported in the way the two main characters feel so much, yet can’t (or won’t) talk about it.
On The Casting Controversy |
There has been a great deal of cyber ink spilt on every other gay blog, weighing in on the issue on whether it was right to cast two straight (at least publicly…although I’ve heard rumors about Jake…Lord let them be true and may his car breakdown in front of my house on day) actors. Many feel that because the characters are gay and this is a “gay film,” then it should have been cast with gay actors. I just don’t get that logic. Isn’t the point of being an actor that you tell a story by becoming someone (or something) other than who (or what) you are? Isn’t it more important that good actors play the part? Besides, how many openly gay actors are there? I mean, put Sir Ian McKellan and Harvey Fierstein in that tent, and it’s a whole different movie.
On the flip-side, as much as I got tired of all the homos who whined about non-gay casting, I got equally tired of hearing the breeders who went on about how brave Heath and Jake were for taking the roles. This maybe cause deja vu, but isn’t the point of being an actor that you tell a story by becoming someone (or something) other than who (or what) you are? I think they were braver for doing The Day After Tomorrow (Jake) and A Knight’s Tale (Heath) because it seems to me that a really bad movie is more damanging to your career. But lucky for both of them, Jarhead (where Jake plays a marine) and Casanova (where Heath plays the world’s most famous lover of women) came out within a few weeks of Brokeback and held their het-ness intact.
On Who Saw The Movie |
I’ve seen where a lot of people feel like if you didn’t go see the movie, then you are anti-gay. Yep, there are probably a lot of people who didn’t see it because they are anti-gay. But that doesn’t mean everyone is. And just because you are gay does not mean you are obligated to see it. Do you think all black people are obligated to see Big Mama’s House 2?
Some of the media made a big deal about the fact that President Dubya said (when asked at a speaking engagement) that he had not seen it. Is anybody really surprised by that? Is that news? Does it even matter? Here’s a news flash: I bet he doesn’t watch Will & Grace either. In fact, I’ll admit I don’t watch Will & Grace either. I did the first couple of years, then I lost interest. Why? Not because of it’s subject matter. Because it wasn’t funny anymore. (Although I have heard that it has gotten funny again this year.) And that’s my point. Not seeing a film or TV show, or not reading a book with a gay slant doesn’t always mean you’re anti-gay. It could just mean (like those middles season of Will & Grace) you are anti-boredom. Or anti any number of things that have nothing to do with bone-smoking.
On The Oscar Upset |
This is the one that gets me the most. I feel the most outrage about people who are outraged about Brokeback not winning Best Picture. Disappointment, I understand. But outrage? I’m not so sure. Isn’t what’s most important that the movie even got made? Besides finding a top-notch director and two A-list actors, I can’t imagine that it was easy to get a studio to even agree to make this movie. I have always tried to live on the philosophy of focusing on what you have, not what you don’t. I’m a real glass-half-full kind of guy. Rather than blasting Hollywood as homophobic (which I’m sure in many ways it must be), celebrate that the movie was made, well-received, and nominated for more Oscars (and won more) than any other film. Not to mention the bajillion other prizes it has gotten. So, Crash won Best Picture. Big fucking deal. It’s just a trophy. It doesn’t make Brokeback any less a good film. I haven’t seen Crash, but from what I understand, it dealt pretty directly with some topical issues, too. They may not be our issues, but does that make them any less important?
Brokeback not winning best picture doesn’t mean that the right wing has succeeded and the acceptance of gays and lesbians is now dead any more than winning would have meant that now we would all be free to get married, adopt kids, and frolic bare-assed together on the mountain side. I know it’s human nature to look for answers to the things that disappoint us, and it often makes want to point a finger. I’m not saying that there were not some phobic people who wouldn’t look at Brokeback on it’s merits as a film. But, who knows how close the vote was? And the fact that it was even a contender (and the favorite) speaks volumes about the the shifting of attitudes (for the good) in this country.
On And On | Well, time for me to climb down off my soap box. I really have run on too long (I wish I knew how to quit you. 
) I know that many of you will not agree with some of the things I said. And that’s okay. You have your opinions. I have mine. I can accept that. Afterall, that’s what it’s really all about. Acceptance.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:11 am
This short-story was a chamber excercise in spare, sparse prose (a work of the imagination written by a remarkable woman,) it spoke volumes through was was left unsaid. The movie fleshed the bare-bones because film can show the unspoken. That’s all it is, just a movie, one of thousands, fiction, nothing more… LT’s posting says it all really.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Once I read the story, I didn’t want to see the movie. Didn’t NEED to, really. There just seemed no need to recapture on film the sadness of it.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:48 am
The irony of your statement regarding the issues involved in the movie CRASH, is they are OUR issues as well. The issue of race in the gay community is our best kept secret. No one wants to touch it. We can cry homophobia all we want, but are we really race neutral?
March 9th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Hey man,
You have said a lot of what I’ve felt but you said it so much better then me. I agree with you about having the movie made with A list actors and directors is a big plus. But I agree with a lot of what you write about man. Your post on Brokeback is the best I’ve read. Keep up the good work buddy
March 9th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Damn Tony………….I think this is one of your best posts. Thank you!
oh and as far as that switching positions comment that you e-mailed me……………………………………………..
Not so much.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
great post tony but as being a gay man i was disappointed that BB didnot win the best picture but then again crash was a great movie to with importaant issues to deal with so being a gay black man i think i will favour BB on the fact that the society will kinda try to accept me as a black person but as a gay man i will not be accepted
well expecting BB to win most nominations and fellicty hoffman taking the best actress i was letting my imagination overwork it self.but the in the end i will always favour anything gay
March 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
thanks a lot, T-Man! I was sipping my coffee when the Sir Ian Mckellan/Harvey Firestein line came up and i choked so hard it made me squirt my coffee thru my nose and in my beard. ..while at work too, mind you.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
I like the pic, too. Good take on the movie….
March 9th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Yours is the most reasoned, intelligent and thought provoking blog post on BBM that’s I’ve read, and I’ve read a lot of them. I saw the movie a few weeks ago, and I agree with everything you’ve said.
I’m just glad you’re not not planning to quit us…
March 9th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
great entry Tony.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I like how you described the movie’s portrayal of men’s varying roles as walking a “tight rope”. This also struck me about the movie, but I could never have described it in such an eloquent way as you have. Beautifully written post; well thought out.
BBM was a very important and groundbreaking film that has earned many best picture awards. I think I can live with that.
Hot picture, Tony.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:27 am
There are lots of things you said that I don’t agree with but still a wonderful post nonetheless.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:24 am
THAT’S why I like you - you make sense. I completely agree with the Oscar section. I mean, outrage? A bit much and I agree. Personally, I’m glad Crash won. Both were great films, but I felt Crash was better for the win. I’ll take my fruit pelting from everyone now.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Where to start? I was not a fan of the movie. However, I did not read the short and I think that Crash is one of my top 5 favorite movies. I am not a big fan of Heath’s portrayal mainly because there were times it was difficult to understand him. Hoffman was phenomenal and subtle as Capote so I was happy about that as well.
As for you, Tony… you never cease to amaze me at your insight and your abilty to express yourself. “Flour” was hysterical and led to such a great sexually charged explanation! As always… reasons I tune in and am glad you must be feeling better.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:55 am
I’d agree that was the best synopsis on the movie I’ve read to date. Better than my own description too! I found the movie very moving. I think in part because I grew up in a lifestyle very similar. Some of the small details were incredibly moving for me. Brought back so many forgotten memories of my childhood.
I too dont’ really care for Heath however, I thought this the best performance of his career. (and to the comment about not being able to read him, that was part of the point. Heath pulled it off beautifully.) Jake is…well Jake. ‘nuf said.
What really stuck me is your last comment about it not mattering how many awards it won. It was a good movie that will hopefully become a gay iconistic classic. It will always be one of my favorite movies. No real special affects, no hifi art or sound systems. Just an honest portrayal of something so human and so raw that it speaks directly to your soul.
Thank you as always for you simplistic insight.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
You dont watch Will & Grace? I’m like so shocked… LOL
March 10th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
On The Film — I agree, it’s more than just a romance. For the reasons you gave, but what I took from it (especially at the end), was the sense of loss and regret. It stuck me hearing “He Was a Friend of Mine” over the ending credits, that there was the universal theme of loss and regret. Saying/doing things you later wish you could take back. Regretting not telling someone how you feel, or treating them different, until you loose them, This theme is common in movies, “Field of Dreams” between a son and father, etc.
On The Casting Controversy — I agree it’s much ado about nothing. Yes, out-gay actors get screwed in Hollywood [no pun intended]. But, aren’t what we’re fighting for is a society where it doesn’t matter if someone is gay or straight, as long as they are good at what they do?
On Who Saw The Movie — I’m not suprised the Pres hasn’t seen it. But what pissed me off what his dismissive attitude. Kind of scoffing, like, “yeah, right, like it’s go see that!” Can you imagine if the audience member had asked if he had seen “Schindler’s List” or “The Color Purple”? And he gave that same kind of “yeah, right!” attitude? It’d be all over the press.
March 13th, 2006 at 1:21 am
I am a big fan of Brokeback. It was certainly much more than I excpeted and I related to the story on many levels. I was married and kids and blah blah blah. Great post!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Okay. So about Brokeback Mountain. Where angels fear to tread. I know there’s all this hype about the flick. But let me tell ya, it didn’t work with me. At all. Now I know that a movie can be a lot of things to a lot of people and I can certainly see the importance of having images of gay boys out there in pop culture. My mom loved it and to be fair, that goes a long way. I’m sure there’s lots of folks out there how loved it and that does us gay boys a good deal.
But, for me, this movie is fundamentally about another dying faggot. And to be frank, I’ve had just about enough of dying sick faggots. Point to one movie that’s made it to the big screen that’s got a gay boy in it that doesn’t involve his suffering? And if he doesn’t suffer he’s completely sexless (and therefore sanitized) or the swishy side kick (and therefore not a threat)—a la Will and Grace. Now I ain’t no pop culture guru, and fuck knows I don’t see enough movies, but I can’t think of one where two gay boys meet and live happily ever after. And I imagine some might say that the movie was an accurate portrayal of the times. Fair enough—verisimilitude is worth something. But then why does every chick flick out there always end up with two straight folks falling happily in love (once they’ve gone through the standard boy/girl has girl boy, boy/girl loses girl/boy, boy/girl gets girl/boy back)—when, in point of fact (verisimilitude again) 2/3 marriages end in divorce (in the US—it’s a bit less in Canada). Let me put it another way: if we’re talking about accurate portrayals, then why is it that we don’t get a love story that has a happy ending when in point of fact the bulk of heterosexual happy endings don’t end so happily?
Indeed, the end of this gay flick, the final punctuation is, in point of fact, a veneration of the heterosexual union. Del Mar gets a visit from his daughter, who asks him to come to her wedding and he says, of course, yes. So we have a gay flick whose final punctuation is a heterosexual wedding. Interestingly, the short story has no mention of a wedding—which for me, at any rate, raises questions. Hmmm. Wait, sorry, the final punctuation mark is when Del Mar turns around to look at the shirt of his dead lover—beaten, we are led to assume, on the side of the highway with a tire iron under circumstances that seem to be akin to a bashing—that is, not so ironically, pinned to a closet door. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to find a movie that’s made it to the big screen that is ostensibly about a homo but is in fact embedded in some sort of heterosexual pursuit.
And for me, the kicker is this: the movie is up for an Oscar. I don’t follow the Oscars—frankly, I often don’t know the names of the actors—but the Oscars are, I suppose, a mark of a good movie, a mark that a group of actors (I think?) gives to a movie as a sign of its value. This movie is about the suffering of two homos over the course of 20 years, a suffering done in silence, without witnesses (can there be any worse suffering than that which occurs without a sympathetic witness?). In the end, I’m not so sure that venerating this movie is much different than venerating the suffering of homos.
And sure, some might say “It’s just a movie”—and maybe I shouldn’t get “all political” about this. But let’s be honest: our cultural landscape is deeply embedded in our political landscape. The movie makes so much sense to so many people—and its success and the accolades being lauded upon it are an index of this “sense”—because the homos it portrays are hardly a threat to what it means to be a man. They look straight, they talk straight, their sexual practices are isolated to some outback in the middle of fuck nowhere, their sex is patently sexless, no one sees them, no one knows they’re gay, and they suffer in silence (all of this occurring during a time when the gay and lesbian movement was flourishing). In effect, the popularity of the flick is linked to the fact that the gay boys it represents don’t really matter to anyone—their lives as gay men make no ripples, impact, or effect on any other character. Indeed, they made no impact on me—that sex scene in the tent? Come on. Get fucking real. I couldn’t identify with them at all. And that scene about getting caught by the wife? For Christ sake. If they were that closeted, do you think they would kiss in broad fucking daylight. I wonder if this movie would have done as well as it did—which is to say, would have made the kind of cultural sense that it is currently making, as evidenced by the enormous success it has in the mainstream (and that’s the key point in all of this) if the two gay boys had been flaming queens and had fallen in love happily ever after?
Anybody seen Transamerica? Happy ending. Fine movie. No Oscar.
Okay, I’m done the rant. Thanks for listening. Yeah, yeah, I know. I should get my own blog.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
“flour in gravy”. Shit. you really do cook.
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Both a wonderful post and a wonderful comment by Russ. I have to say you both make some good points. I would like to throw is my thoughts on why BBM didn,t win best picture. I think it is because it was not the best movie. Crash was a much better movie.
And in you see this Russ you should start your own blog you have a great voice.