I finally saw Brokeback Mountain and although this topic seems to have run
its course on the list, no one has stepped up to the plate to answer David
Kusumoto's original question, which I thought was a legitimate and
provocative request. No, not his first question: "How many people on this
list are gay?" (that was awkward and silly--hey, how many of you are fat? I
want to know what you thought of The Nutty Professor). I'm referring to his
question whether Brokeback Mountain reflected reality or not. Hold on, 'cuz
yer about to git a hol 'nuther take on this movie.
I confess to not liking this film within the first 30 minutes, and although
I was hopeful that it would grow on me under the direction of the very
talented Ang Lee (his "Wedding Banquet" is a personal favorite), it didn't.
For me, it never had the ring of truth and wasn't at all what I expected.
The buzz was that this was a "great love story" and I had hoped to see
something groundbreaking. I really wanted to like this movie and have had to
fight conflicting feelings of pride and satisfaction that this gay film was
being seen and praised by such a large, mainstream audience.
What I came away with was this very minimalist portrait filled with cliches
and cardboard characters which only reinforce the popular notion that a gay
life is by definition alienating, unfulfilling and tragic. I know that this
was most likely not the author's intent, but I just wish a more worthy story
had garnered the attention and praise of the mainstream movie audience.
Remember, this is a work of fiction, crafted in the mind of a middle-aged,
white (and as far as I know, heterosexual) woman who could have chosen to
paint from the much richer palette of universal human emotion and
experiences instead of the narrow picture of repressed homosexuality
represented here. I'm not denying that her story of these two characters is
plausible, just that it didn't ring very true for me based on my life
experiences and this wasn't a story that I particularly wanted or needed to
see. And once I realized these characters and this story weren't really
going anywhere, I grew bored. The original author, screenwriters and
director made deliberate choices to tell this story using a long list of
cliches and stereotypical scenarios--so I was very disappointed. It wouldn't
matter to me as much if the movie weren't so darned popular. I guess I
should feel better knowing that most of the audience probably feels sympathy
for these characters, but I'm saddened that the mainstream public has chosen
this film as a credible and momentous love story about Gay America.
I've never known any gay men as one-dimensional as Jack or Ennis, but I have
known many gay men--closeted or openly gay--who are pretty much like most
anyone you'd typically run into. This is the world I live in, where I don't
see much difference between the relationships of couples gay or straight.
We're all human beings and as much as some would like to emphasize our
differences, there's more sameness about us than difference. So even in the
imagined world of Brokeback Mountain, I expected to recognize a little more
familiar territory from the landscape of intimate relationships.
I kept waiting for more revelations of what cemented the bond between Ennis
and Jack as human beings beyond sexual objects. Why were they drawn
together? What did they even LIKE about each other? I didn't even really get
why they would be best friends, much less lovers. So from my point of view,
I was really watching two heterosexual men who happened to have occasional
homosexual sex together. I couldn't help thinking this made it a little
easier for a straight audience to digest. And the prurient lure of seeing a
couple of (presumably) straight stars play gay no doubt is part of the draw
for some--and part of the comfort factor for those who would normally shy
away from such a story (after all, they're just actors pretending). Do you
think many people would have gone to see Brokeback Mountain if it had
starred Harvey Fierstein and Richard Simmons--no matter how fantastic the
acting or the direction was? Face it, mainstream society is more comfortable
with the stereotype of the tough, silent "straight-acting" male icon than it
is with a man capable of sharing feelings, passion and--dare I say
it--romance with another man. I get the tragedy part of this story, as
contrived as I felt it was, but if this is a great love story, where was the
romance between them?
I was uncomfortable during their first physical encounter as I'm sure most
others in the audience probably were, not because of what they were doing,
but because it wasn't playing out in a way that made sense to me. The tired
device of getting the two characters drunk first wasn't enough--by the logic
of this author's homophobic world, you could get killed for barking up the
wrong tree. There was no seduction leading up to this (or did I miss
something?)--it just started abruptly happening. In retrospect, I guess it
was too much to expect a romantic seduction from these one-dimensional
characters, but I did expect some hint, some testing of the water earlier in
their relationship to clear the way for this to begin happening between
them--if only so they would know the other wouldn't kill them if they made
the first pass. The possibilities that come to mind would be casual joking
around, teasing or a confession of a previous gay or near-gay experience to
gauge the other's reaction.
Sure, I understand that the authors were trying to depict Ennis and Jack's
lust for each other in their first sexual encounter. I just wasn't buying
the way it was set up, nor that this was enough to sustain a great love
affair over the years. Obviously, there is a small percentage of the gay
population that is into anonymous or impersonal sex (as there is in the
straight population), but I didn't think that was what this movie was
supposed to be about. I was embarrassed, knowing that thousands of straight
audience members, after seeing the depiction of sex between men for perhaps
the first time, would walk away with the idea that this was normal or even
commonplace among gay men--much less between two men in a "great love
story". And the love that supposedly existed between these two thinly-drawn
characters didn't develop or deepen from my point of view. I never felt
their physical relationship evolved into much of anything else--no
tenderness, not even much comraderie or companionship beyond simple grunts
and small talk. Oh right, that was the point. These were tragic characters
trapped by their own repression of sexuality. ZZZZzzzzzzzz.
What I really wanted to see was the story of the two men that Ennis told
Jack about, the gay couple who had set up a ranch together--and of course,
were brutally killed off by the author (can't have too many tragic reminders
of the dangers of a gay "lifestyle" around here). I'll bet theirs could've
been a great love story--even if you kept the tragic ending. It certainly
would have been more interesting. These two men made a commitment to each
other, to live, love and grow together. Like people do in real life. Plenty
of gay couples survived throughout middle America in the last century--I'm
sure some even in Wyoming--living personally satisfying lives together even
if they couldn't be open about the true nature of their relationships.
There's a good reason why the conservative moral majority hasn't launched a
full-scale attack on this movie. Why bother? The authors have done the work
for them by reinforcing their beliefs that such a tragic "lifestyle" can
only result in unhappiness, condemnation and death. Again, these comfortably
familiar cliches were deliberately chosen by the authors to create their
fictional world. There are other movies, based on real-life gay tragedies,
which are more worthy of our sympathies and praise ("Boys Don't Cry").
If it's true that some well-known scripts were originally written for two
gay characters, then there's hope that someday a really great script won't
have to be subjected to gender changes to make it commercially acceptable.
Just to use a few examples of movies I've watched recently, imagine if the
two lead characters in "Something's Gotta Give" were gay men, or the lead
character in "Under the Tuscan Sun" was a lesbian. The gay characters in
these stories would be far more interesting and rewarding to watch than the
one-dimensional cowboys in the narrowly-defined universe of Brokeback
Mountain.
There has been a long list of gay-themed movies in recent years that are
truthful and meaningful stories of what it's like to be gay in America. Some
are awkward and immature, hobbled by poorly-written scripts, amateur acting
or low budgets. But most have a far greater ring of truth than Brokeback
Mountain, partly because many of these movie's writers, directors and actors
ARE gay. Some are based on real people or drawn from real-life experiences.
Some are wonderful romantic comedies and poignant love stories. But as good
as some of these movies are, they haven't been seen by most of the
mainstream movie-going public. I'm saddened that Brokeback Mountain will
probably leave them in the box office dust. I continue to hold out hope that
someday, someone will craft a truthful, romantic, inspiring gay love story
that is enormously successful and really captures the heart and soul of the
nation. One that doesn't have to rely on so many negative images long
associated with being gay. I ain't seen that movie yet.
--David
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
