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.