Okay, so a lot of this is cross-posted from yesterday's gushy Barbelith review but what the hey. There didn't seem to be a thread here on Brokeback Mountain and, finding myself still quite fascinated by the film (and the hoo-hah around it) I'm interested in TMO opinions.
First impressions, yesterday:
Saw Brokeback Mountain earlier today, and I'm still finding it difficult to articulate my thoughts on the film because I became caught up entirely in the huge emotional sweep of the thing to the extent that refocussing on the detail and (extremely minor) flaws feels somehow... to do it a disservice.
I honestly can't remember when last a film affected me as powerfully on such a visceral level. My partner's the same, and I'm wondering to what extent we're reacting as gay men - because Brokeback Mountain didn't seem like a 'gay movie'. It felt more universal than that, a more classic tale of doomed love, albeit love which arguably didn't need to be doomed - hence the element of tragedy.
I'd been attempting to avoid as much of the media hype as possible, but I did read Proulx's short story beforehand. I'm glad I did, because it helped me in the early stages: rather than straining to glean plot from Ennis's mumbly monosyllables, I could sit back and let the slowly unfolding story - and particularly the beautiful visuals - wash over me. As Twist coaxes Ennis gradually out of his taciturn carapace, his dialogue becomes clearer. It's the non-verbal stuff which truly dazzles, the glances and glances away, the oblique yet fluent body language in which car mirrors and cigarettes and hatbrims and belt buckles become extensions/expressions of the men's communication/courtship. Ennis, in particular, uses his stetson as a defence mechanism, from the initial extraordinary silent 'pose-off' onwards.
Since so much was communicated visually, and in terms of the luminous Wyoming scenery itself, I really appreciated Lee's having taken time to unfold his story with languor - so the film's wide-open spaces reflected the achingly (frighteningly) gorgeous emptiness of the mountainside itself. It felt spare but unhurried. To a certain extent I can understand some people having a problem with the paucity of explicit foreshadowing of the sex scene in the tent. I do think it's there, though, in the increasing physical and emotional intimacy ('stripping off') between the two men, and implicitly Ennis's talk of a coyote "with balls as big as apples" while rubbing down his own (presumably somewhat swollen) genitalia. There's definite sexual tension; it's just that Jack's so much more emotionally literate (and presumably one Kinsey numeral higher) than Ennis that he successfully manages the situation - avoiding frightening his nervy steer with frank attention - until events can no longer be resisted. When it does finally happen, it's a risk - Jack might get beaten to a pulp - but it's a (drunkenly) calculated risk which will be familiar to many gay men. I can absolutely recognise that inebriated sense of 'how the fuck did we get here?'. I think it works. There's a ring of truth (ho ho).
And yeah, it is close to rape, just as much of the open-air horseplay edges into fisticuffs. Isn't that part of the attraction, though? Like seasons on the mountain itself, Ennis and Jack's physicality is raw, elemental. It's a million miles away from 'gay' in any non-sexual sense.
On Barbelith, the question of the moment is, would saliva be sufficient lubricant for such enthusiastic bumsex? Possibly, I suppose, depending on the sizes involved. In the short story, there's also allusion to precum, in which case Ennis has either been dozing with a big, dripping stiffy or goes from zero to sixty pretty damn sharpish...
Although much has been made of the hott sex scene, I actually found myself more affected by the urgency and hunger of the 'four years later' moment. For me, that was the film's emotional pivot, and it puzzled me slightly when some of my fellow cinema-goers laughed at Alma's reaction. While Ennis's penchant for anal sex is clearly something of an ongoing pain in the arse (ho ho) for her, witnessing the cowboy clinch is the point at which Alma truly glimpses the lie at the heart of her marriage. Or rather, the impossible compromise.
(My partner wondered whether the people who tittered at that point also cried at the end. Valid question. There seemed as many non-weepers as weepers in the Vue audience.)
Accusations of "rampant misogyny"? Well yes, I guess so, in the sense that, in the context of Ennis and Jack's twenty-year love affair, wives and daughters are (at least notionally) symbols of duty, impediments - and part of Alma's/Lureen's pain is that they're able to recognise that. I thought pretty much all the women were intelligently drawn, and I don't think they were portrayed by Lee himself in a misogynistic way. From Alma Junior to old Ma Twist, they read the situation on at least some level, partly intuited The Problem With Men Like Ennis/Jack - even as they were drawn to the romantic outsider archetype. I agree that, at times, it seemed implicit that every cowboy marriage included a tacit understanding/denial of necessarily discreet man-to-man lust - although Jack's bar scene with the 'rodeo clown' suggests that any such understanding is by no means universal. One mustn't frighten the horses, particularly in Texas.
One might conceivably level a charge of misogyny at the portrayal of Lureen and her increasingly ludicrous hairdos, but I think this is part and parcel of the new What Jack Did scenes (Jack's outfits and hair - particularly his facial hair - also morph through varying degrees of '70s/'80s dodginess). Her increasing chilliness, particularly in that final, devastating 'phone call, is betrayed by the little sound she makes in her throat when the origin of 'Brokeback Mountain' is revealed. As with the other women, she knows.
*sigh*
It's still weirdly difficult talking about these scenes without twinges of the massive emotional wrench I experienced in the cinema. During the latter part of the film, I found myself holding my breath while tears and snot welled. Ennis's visit to the Twists is almost unbearable. I've never particularly been one to romanticise the iconography of the American West, but in Lee's film I felt I could genuinely appreciate the savage beauty of the open country, and the hardship (hardons) of those lifestyles which depend upon it.
We left the cinema utterly poleaxed - but neither of us felt unduly manipulated. Heath Ledger, in particular, deserves an Oscar. He's been quoted in the UK gay press as saying that, on viewing the finished article, he was proud of his acting for the very first time - and he's 100% justified in expressing this. Every lead was strong, but his was a shattering, career-defining performance. Outstanding.
-----
24 hours later, it's still with me. I'm reading some interesting reviews on Christian fundie websites: it would appear that Lee's admirable attempts to make this not another gay polemic in which his characters are chaste plaster saints (a la Philadelphia) or a semi-hysterical 'sexual predators' portrayal of TEH TWILIGHT WORLD OF TEH HOMOSEXUAL (a la Cruising) mean Brokeback Mountain can be variously interpreted/'claimed' by gay groups and US conservatives alike (although the latter reviews read as somewhat... strained). There's a predictable 'John Wayne is spinning in his grave' element.
Anyway.
Anyone here seen it? I'm particularly interested in what the hets thought.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow, great review. I wanted to see this just for Jake Gyllenhaal being a homo cowboy - I didn't realise it might actually be good as well. I shall check it out this week.
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm really looking forward to seeing this too. It's got good reviews on my fave neo-nazi movie review site, Stormfront.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
quote:now days you can not go anywhere or do anything with out having to witness them. TV has lamost become unwatchable for the most part. The Media is pushing.. no.. shoving Homosexual tolerance down the people throats.where does it stop.. pretty soon our kids will be taught the being a Homo is a goodthing, a PURE thing. Society is now no longer sickened by it.. we accept it with open arms.. NOT ME.
posted
Oh dear, isn't Stormfront getting in a (possibly trouserial) lather? I love the following:
quote:But cowboys are last bastion of decent manhood. They should not mess with that. Apparently this movie doesn't have just sex, it has cuddling too.
*gasp*
They're right, though; they shouldn't mess with cowboys. Ah well, at least we still have policemen, Red Indians, bikers and construction workers. They'll never claim those bastions of decent manhood.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
posted
Skimming my favourite Christian blogs and forums, I'm intrigued by the number of people hijacking discussion of the film to inform all and sundry, at some length, that they have no intention of going to see it - but it's crap because blah blah assumptioncakes. I'm uncertain whether this is some kind of fundie pissing contest ("yeah, well, I'm gouging my eyes and ears out so I don't accidentally witness its foul immorality") or the fear of contracting 'gay' by celluloid transmission.
I'm guessing it'll do incredibly well on DVD.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
posted
I was looking forward to this film until I found out that the cowboys in this film were modern cowboys. Is that accurate? I thought they were like old West cowboys or something, which would have been great. Like a gay Django and The Man With No Name, riding round together and gunning people down.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
They're 1960s cowboys, which is somewhere in-between - sadly not yer old-fashioned true-blue icons of American masculinity. Curse you, Ang Lee, for sissifying a pure archetype.
posted
Heh. One of the Sturmfronters expressed a desire that the film would "bottom out" at the box office. The next chap along also stated that he hoped it would be "a flop".
Goddamn I hope there's some serious trolling going on there, otherwise imma fastbleep Dr Freud.
Posts: 1562
| IP: Logged
posted
And no, I don't think it was intentional. Because funny on SF seems to be calling it "Buttfuck Mountain". Or "Brokeass Mountain". And adding a lolling smiley.
Posts: 1562
| IP: Logged
posted
I called it bareback mountain for ages while talking to somebody about going to see it - they thought I was trying to be funny, but I was just being stupid...
-------------------- If Chuck Norris is late, time better slow the fuck down Posts: 2741
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Carter: And no, I don't think it was intentional. Because funny on SF seems to be calling it "Buttfuck Mountain". Or "Brokeass Mountain". And adding a lolling smiley.
Man that's weak. They should at least think to change 'mountain' to 'mounting'. Ballsac's Bareback Mounting works best for this I reckon.
posted
Why is straight America so touchy about this? Cowboys weren't nearly as tough as pirates (British pirates, I might add) and everyone knows pirates were queer.
posted
I saw a great TV spot for this last night, where they went to extreme lengths to hide the fact that this film was about bummers. The whole thing was carefully edited so that shots of Heath and Jak hugging only showed one of their faces, while dialogue of the "I can't live wihout you" sort was overlaid over shots of Heath hugging his wife, playing with his daughter etc. All this despite the fact that Brokeback Mountain has been known as "that gay cowboy film" for about the last two years.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I was looking forward to this film until I found out that the cowboys in this film were modern cowboys. Is that accurate? I thought they were like old West cowboys or something, which would have been great. Like a gay Django and The Man With No Name, riding round together and gunning people down.
Now that would have been cool.
Whilst it's not the Wild West, you can get a bit of that sort of action in The Wire, in the form of the seriously bad-ass shot-gun toting black gay stick-up man Omar.
Will reserve judgement on Brokeback Mountain until I see it, though I can't say I'm in a special hurry.
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I saw a great TV spot for this last night, where they went to extreme lengths to hide the fact that this film was about bummers. The whole thing was carefully edited so that shots of Heath and Jak hugging only showed one of their faces, while dialogue of the "I can't live wihout you" sort was overlaid over shots of Heath hugging his wife, playing with his daughter etc. All this despite the fact that Brokeback Mountain has been known as "that gay cowboy film" for about the last two years.
Dear oh dear. On the one hand, I suppose it's reasonable to try to shed the reductive "gay cowboy" label (technically they'd be ranch hands rather than cowboys, and neither would identify as gay, despite bumming aplenty); on the other, the editing you describe is actively misleading as to who can't live without who.
Surely no-one who enters the cinema to see Brokeback Mountain can't know what it's about?
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm going to see this tomorrow night. If I don't emerge a moral degenerate, ready to thrust perverted homosexual behaviour down the throats of decent folk I shall want my money back.
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: Those Sturmfrunters just can't do innuendo. Not intentionally, anyway.
Bet they all buy it on DVD and get turgidly furious in the privacy of their own SS shrines...
Why is it like really funny to invent ridiculous, mocking fantasies about the home lives of internet fascists and fundamentalist Christians?
It seems about as weak a strategy as those groups laughing about their misconceived notions of gay lifestyle.
It's good that you found the film enriching, but why are you offended that certain Christian reviewers -- who you must know are going to disapprove of physical homosexuality on screen just as you seem to dislike, and certainly parody, the way they express their faith -- have reservations which they put forward on a website for like-minded Christians?
Is a website like PluggedInOnline actually bothering you, offending you, oppressing or affecting you through its existence as a reference point for Christian families?
Why do you have to poach into their cultural territory, bringing stuff back to ridicule and hold up for attack, rather than just enjoying what the film gives you as a happy gay man?
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Why is it like really funny to invent ridiculous, mocking fantasies about the home lives of internet fascists and fundamentalist Christians?
It seems about as weak a strategy as those groups laughing about their misconceived notions of gay lifestyle.
I'm not sure that it is a) "like really funny" or b) "a strategy" for me to take the piss. It's me taking the piss. I could well claim that it's not outwith the bounds of possibility that those who loudly profess a deeply excitable loathing for the cowboy-on-cowboy action (such as it is) of Brokeback Mountain might, in fact, be moderately (turgidly) 'interested' in those scenes in private - in the few plethysmograph studies of strongly homophobic individuals, it's not an uncommon finding. My main motivation in taking the piss is, however, to take the piss.
quote:It's good that you found the film enriching, but why are you offended that certain Christian reviewers -- who you must know are going to disapprove of physical homosexuality on screen just as you seem to dislike, and certainly parody, the way they express their faith -- have reservations which they put forward on a website for like-minded Christians?
Am I "offended"? Is my face "offended"? I don't think so. I'm unsurprised, mildly irritated, slightly amused by the reaction - but I don't think I'd claim to be offended. That sounds a little too huffy for me, and isn't my usual way of processing mild irritations.
What I am is interested. I see Brokeback Mountain as something of a cultural phenomenon, and am absolutely intrigued to see how straight/gay/bi/whatever people - of various cultural backgrounds - react to it. It seems to be splitting the Christian Right in ways that are quite difficult to predict, which I'm finding fascinating.
quote:Is a website like PluggedInOnline actually bothering you, offending you, oppressing or affecting you through its existence as a reference point for Christian families?
Perhaps you can point out where I claimed it was? Of course, I could start banging on about the influence of the Christian Right on the leader of the world's sole hyperpower and argue that that hyperpower exerts a global (if indirect) influence over us all. I could also, with a little memory-wracking, cite gay friends in the US whose lives have been directly, materially affected by that Christian Right influence, and with whom I share a certain non-solipsistic empathy. I'm not sure I'm that wanky, though; I'm happy enough just to take the piss.
quote:Why do you have to poach into their cultural territory, bringing stuff back to ridicule and hold up for attack, rather than just enjoying what the film gives you as a happy gay man?
Hahahah, I think I'd quite like my tagline changed to "a happy gay man".
Am I 'poaching into their cultural territory' merely by quoting and ridiculing them? Are you 'poaching into' my 'cultural territory' here by commenting on my gayness? Am I 'poaching into' yours by posting on TMO? Where does 'cultural territory' begin and end? Does every quote or link or image held up for ridicule constitute 'poaching'? If so, I pity the gamekeeper...
Are you seriously suggesting that pisstaking be considered beyond the pale, on TMO or elsewhere? Perhaps you might expand on this a little, Kovacs? I'm interested in when it becomes cultural 'poaching'. Wasn't there that incident with you and that black community forum not so long ago? Was that 'poaching'?
As for whether I have to take the piss, no, not really. I choose to, though, because I like taking the piss - and because I find many of the attitudes expressed (particularly the bizarre perceptions of homosexuality) rather ridiculous. I suppose I see it as a relatively harmless way of managing my own mild exasperation with the attitudes expressed. It's arguably less of an imposition than my starting I'm Not Going To See Narnia (But Here's Why It's Wrong) threads, or lobbying our Government to stop Christians marrying.
Of course, if you don't feel TMO is an appropriate place for me to ridicule things I find annoying, then let me know. I'll actually appreciate the irony of this forum being the one to impose TEH CENSERSHIP!1!! on someone from Barbelith...
(PS: I'm not kidding; I really do want my tagline changed to "a happy gay man". Could whoever does these things do it, please? Pleeeease?)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic