Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

[Jun-Dai]

I just want to see a good movie.

And what, pray tell, is that? Something you can laugh and cry at and then return home and leave behind? This kind of sentiment always leaves me a little on edge, because I suspect it to imply that a "good movie" is to do with some core, autotelic quality of the film that exists without its social context, which has always struck me as an impossibility.

[marty]

I think everyone has different criteria about what they this is a good movie movie or whether they enjoy it or not so there is obviously no set formula for what a good movie is, of course. I think that desire and loss are pretty universal themes that everyone can relate to so I think this probably accounts why the film has performed so well. Whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or transgender romances is irrelevant to most viewers.

[Jun-Dai]

An impasse that Andre reached with David before was that when the minority is trying to make headways into the majority, it takes baby steps.

There's definitely some truth to this, but on the other hand, despite all of these baby steps, straight, white men are still very much at the top of the heap, and our mainstream films still very much encourage white- and male-dominated American culture. Alien was more than a baby step (though more than a few feel it should have gone farther) for strong female leads, and we still haven't gone very far past that in the 25 years since. Many would argue that the African American position in the cultural mainstream has gone downhill since the late 80s, and Latino marginalization has been even more severe. Likewise, I think it's misguided optimism that pushes people to believe that Brokeback Mountain is part of some slow progression towards our society's heartfelt acceptance of homosexuality. While I'm not as quick as Ehrenstein to disdain the baby steps, I'm also not terribly impressed with them. There is a dark and heavy streak of homophobia in this country and a landmark film of any real significance in the mainstream would cause riots, rather than just a shut down screening in Utah.

To be honest, I think it would only take one powerful figure in Hollywood willing to risk a loss (e.g., Mel Gibson, Steven Spielberg---that kind of figure) to stir this up, but there has been nothing. Now would really be the perfect time for that kind of film, given current events, and Brokeback Mountain pops out. If this encourages a producer to take a much bigger and bolder step, then Ehrenstein might be inclined to revise his position, but I doubt it will--critical darling though it might be, I suspect producers will interpret Brokeback Mountain's box office receipts as being the maximum a gay film could ever take in in this climate, and much more than one with a gay director, gay cast, and a modern, urban gay story could pull in.

Whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or transgender romances is irrelevant to most viewers.

Most viewers that have seen this film (i.e., its niche audience) or most film viewers in general?

The latter seems like a pretty ridiculous idea (that most people in this country oppose gay marriage is a pretty clear indication of the importance of sexual orientation in their idea of romance). The former is a bit more nuanced.

The sexual orientation of the romance is pretty central to the nature of any romance, given how strong the gender roles in this society are. If men and women were treated as equals and had interchangeable gender roles in our society, then it might be possible for it not to be central to the nature of the romance, but that's pure speculation. More importantly, the fact that most of the heterosexuals in this country don't think about the sexual orientation of the romance that they're watching when they're watching their typical (heterosexual) romance unfold onscreen is a privilege not unlike the ability of most white folk not to have to think about the fact that they are white most days. Another way to put it is that we can categorize a film as being a "gay film," and most gay films are thought of as such, but most heterosexual romances are not thought of as "heterosexual romances"--they are just thought of as romances. Perhaps we can take a poll here: for those of you that are gay, do you find the sexual orientation of the romance in the film to be irrelevant to the film?

[marty]

As a result of Brokeback Mountain's relative success at the box office (I am sure it has exceeded what Focus Features were hoping to do at the box office), there is no doubt that you will see more homosexual characters or gay romance films from Hollywood of various quality. Hollywood studios would make anything, if they thought it could make heaps of money. Prior to The Passion of Christ release, many Jewish studio executives were lambasting Mel Gibson claiming they will never work with him ever again. They went conspicuously quiet once the film proved to be a box office phenomena.

[marty]

But surely there are many homosexuals who enjoy watching heterosexual romance films like Before Sunset etc because despite the romance being heterosexual, they can also relate the film's portrayal of desire and longing to their own homosexual romance experiences and vice versa for heterosexual people when watching Brokeback Mountain.

The idea that the homosexual romance between these two men cannot exist due to social acceptance is no different to the heterosexual romance in Scorsese's The Age of Innocence where Newland and Ellen's relationship could not continue for the same reason of social acceptability and what is considered "normal".

[Jun-Dai]

many Jewish studio executives were lambasting Mel Gibson claiming they will never work with him ever again. They went conspicuously quiet once the film proved to be a box office phenomena.

Who were these execs and have they worked with him again? As for going quiet, that's mostly a media thing: what they say only hits our ears if the media between us and them decides to let/push it through.

If a congressman says something in a forest, and the media doesn't tell us about it, did he really say it?

I agree that execs will push anything they think will make gobs of money (unless, like Disney, they fear hurting the corporate image), but a single success does not always open doors for other films. Someone asked Denzel Washington if he felt pleased for having opened the doors to Hollywood for other African Americans, and he responded that he hadn't really opened the doors for anyone but himself--as far as he could tell, it wasn't going to be any easier for the next guy.

The Passion of the Christ was a huge success as you point out, but what films have been following in its footsteps? If it was antisemitic, as many claimed, surely the film would have opened doors for further antisemitism?

But surely there are many homosexuals who enjoy watching heterosexual romance films like Before Sunset etc because despite the romance being heterosexual, they can also relate the film's portrayal of desire and longing to their own homosexual romance experiences and vice versa for heterosexual people when watching Brokeback Mountain.

I suspect they watch these films because they feel compelled to be more open-minded about the matter, because almost all film romances are hetero, and because they take what they can get. If you're straight, you could probably manage to go through college and get a degree in film without watching a film about gay people (though probably some of the actors will have been gay, albeit in the closet), black people (Birth of a Nation doesn't count), or latino people. You might be shown Do the Right Thing, anything else would make for a pretty progressive department (though I understand a number of schools offer courses on black cinema and some even have gay film. I doubt there's a school in this country that has a course on hetero cinema or white cinema). Try being black and trying to get a degree in film without watching a film about white people. I'm not saying that gay people would shy away from hetero films if they could, just that it's not really an option unless they want to shy away from films altogether.

You can't belong to any group that isn't male, white, and straight and be into films without watching films about straight, white males. You can, however, be straight, white, and male and be into films and only occasionally venture into "special interest" films or chick flicks. What makes this all the more depressing is the number of straight, white men that feel like they're being dragged into it when they are taken to see a film that is meant to appeal to some other group. It's tremendously significant that no other group generally has this privilege. That very privilege leads the privileged to feel that the "quality" of a film should matter more than whether the main characters are gay/black/female, which explains why so many critics are climbing over each other to announce that this film isn't merely a gay film, it's much more than that.

The idea that the homosexual romance between these two men cannot exist due to social acceptance is no different to the heterosexual romance in Scorsese's The Age of Innocence where Newland and Ellen's relationship could not continue for the same reason of social acceptability and what is considered "normal".

I'm sure a lot of people would feel that there exists some difference there. Just because some parallels might exist does not mean that they are the same.

[Michael]

Perhaps we can take a poll here: for those of you that are gay, do you find the sexual orientation of the romance in the film to be irrelevant to the film?

Utterly relevant. Or otherwise Brokeback Mountain wouldn't exist in the first place. Brokeback is about two men who can't be openly in love BECAUSE they are just that, two men. That's about as specific as it could be.

[marty]

I am sure the reason most people are going to see Brokeback Mountain are not going because they have a burning desire to see two men having sex and kissing each other. Otherwise, it would have been a very small proportion of people going to see the film. Thwarted romances have always been good Hollywood fodder whether it is an interracial or homosexual relationship or any other relationship that is not considered to be socially unacceptable. Brokeback Mountain would obviously not have existed in its current form but another similar film could be made of an interracial relationship in the Wyoming outback. It would have been a different film (obviously!) but the universal themes of desire and lost love would still resonate.

[zedz]

Are you suggesting that there's a finite amount of attention that people are willing to spend on gay cinema and BBM use capturing more than its fair share? I can see Ehrenstein agreeing with the latter part (and furthermore suggestion that BBM isn't doing what it should to expand that total amount of attention), but the former part seems a bit shaky.

I'm actually suggesting that there's a finite amount of attention that the mainstream media are willing to spend on 'gay' cinema, and that the mass audience will tend to fall in step behind. I raised the point because I was intrigued to see the same imbalance replicated on this forum. For all that Mysterious Skin has plenty of admirers here (maybe more than BBM), it sure isn't attracting the same amount of attention.

I don't think it would have been unreasonable for Araki, Levitt et al. to have expected some recognition come the awards season, but with a couple of notable exceptions, Skin has been shut out, and maybe that is because there's a more 'respectable' alternative. How many gay characters is too many on a Best Male Performance ballot, anyway?

We'll never know for sure what effect BBM has had, but Skin is one of several films suffering the misfortune of being one of the Other Gay Films of 2005. Unlike the first (genuine) coming of Queer Cinema, I've seen very little coverage of BBM celebrating it as part of an extensive variety of contemporary gay film. BBM is being pitched and received as a singular phenomenon, not part of a rich, vibrant tradition, and presumably the straightness of its creators is a big part of that.

Hey, here's the latest Sight & Sound cover-featuring BBM as part of a "Western Special." See what I mean?

[ben d banana]

There's definitely some truth to this, but on the other hand, despite all of these baby steps, straight, white men are still very much at the top of the heap, and our mainstream films still very much encourage white- and male-dominated American culture... a landmark film of any real significance in the mainstream would cause riots, rather than just a shut down screening in Utah.

This I would be insane to argue. Maybe when the time comes the whole world needs to speak Mandarin to get along this will change, however it won't help the queer, black, latino, etc communities. I do wonder if North Americans of today would be motivated to riot for anything besides their sports team winning, or losing, as was the case here in Vancouver. Is this overall comfort and ambivalence also part of the problem? Only the religious right seem to be on the verge at all times.

To be honest, I think it would only take one powerful figure in Hollywood willing to risk a loss (e.g., Mel Gibson, Steven Spielberg---that kind of figure) to stir this up, but there has been nothing.

I seriously doubt we'll see this day. Even if something were to happen it would merely be co-opted as another commercial aspect of our society and regular life would go on as normal, see the South Park "Queer Eye" episode.

[marty]

If 90% of the world's population were gay and 10% heterosexual, then gay films would have been in the majority and not in the minority as they are now. It's a simple fact of numbers rather than any aggressive hidden agenda by the majority.

Also, I don't think it was any accident that Todd Haynes' superb Far From Heaven correlated a homosexual relationship with an interracial one as both being socially unacceptable in 1950s USA. A love lost is a love lost.

[zedz]

Also, I don't think it was any accident that Todd Haynes' superb Far From Heaven correlated a homosexual relationship with an interracial one as both being socially unacceptable in 1950s USA. A love lost is a love lost.

Getting back off topic: I think Haynes' film was far more nuanced than this. Being the 50s, a white male (even a gay white male) had far more options than a black male or a woman. At the end of the film, Quaid's character has not lost his love: he's still in a far stronger and more privileged position than his wife or her lover. His love can be indulged by society under certain conditions; theirs is completely unacceptable.

Needless to say, I don't consider Far From Heaven to be "just a love story." The Fassbinder connection is more than mere window-dressing.

[Michael]

Far From Heaven is NOT a love story. Not a bit.

His love can be indulged by society under certain conditions

What certain conditions? Far From Heaven doesn't dig deeper in "his love" because it is not his story. It's Cathys story.

[Jun-Dai]

For all that Mysterious Skin has plenty of admirers here (maybe more than BBM), it sure isn't attracting the same amount of attention.

Well, among other things, one shouldn't equate number of posts with interest. This thread would be about 2 pages long if Ehrenstein and Michael weren't here fighting to get their points across.

If 90% of the world's population were gay and 10% heterosexual, then gay films would have been in the majority and not in the minority as they are now. It's a simple fact of numbers rather than any aggressive hidden agenda by the majority.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Yes, you are correct that it's nothing inherent in heterosexuality that these things have worked out the way they have. But you are wrong to think that it's a numbers game; it has to do with control, and even more importantly, dominance. Straight, white males can't make up more than 30% of the population of this country, yet I'd guess that a much higher percentage than that of the 200 highest grossing films have straight, white male protagonists. Heterosexuals are the dominant group in this country, and so heterosexuals tend not to think of heterosexuality as being an important part of their identity, unless specifically asked about it (because it's the default).

Oh, and no one has suggested that there is an aggressive hidden agenda at play, least of all me. Are you suggesting that I did?

[marty]

Far From Heaven is NOT a love story. Not a bit.

His love can be indulged by society under certain conditions

What certain conditions? Far From Heaven doesn't dig deeper in "his love" because it is not his story. It's Cathys story.

You are right, it is indeed Cathy's story and hers is one of an unfulfilled loving relationship with the black gardener. Therefore, I definitiely see it as a love story but not exclusively.

Oh, and no one has suggested that there is an aggressive hidden agenda at play, least of all me. Are you suggesting that I did?

No, I did not but there seems to be plenty of resentment and anger towards why there are not more gay films being made of which I can agree to a certain extent. However, you are right in that there are probably 30% of the poulation that are straight, white males but when you break the population between heterosexual and homosexual, then that probably accounts to the ratio of gay films being made. For every straight, white male who went to see Die Hard , there was an almost equal amount of females going to see Bruce Willis in action (and perhaps a few gay men as well!). If the films being made in Hollywood should equate to the demographics of the US population, then there should certainly be more Latino films being made.

[David Ehrenstein]

There are plenty of gay films being made. Many of them great.

None of them have had the attention lavished on Brokeback Mountain

[The Invunche]

But you cannot fault Brokeback Mountain for that.

[Lino]

Too late. He already has.

[David Ehrenstein]

The facts speak for themseleves. This was a very cannily contrived and marketed product. And the marketing is inextricable from the film.

Every single ticket purchaser knows this is a film about "gay" that has been "critically-acclaimed" as a "breakthrough."

[jcelwin]

Again, I haven't seen the film yet...

But, it seems that the film is being promoted less as a 'gay' [themed] film, and more of a love story that just happens to be between two men.

Perhaps you are looking at it from the wrong perspective? Is it really trying to address 'gay' issues, or show a quintessential homosexual relationship?

I realise that the reason that they are not together is because they repress their feelings, but that is just making an interesting love story (i.e. Romeo and Juliet) rather than addressing a major issue.

'If' the film is at all landmark, it is probably because of the attention it has garnered and the fact that it is portraying the characters as 'tragic lovers' instead of 'gay lovers'; which makes them easier to relate to (and accept) for viewers who are straight.

Looking over what I have written now, perhaps it does address an important issue. By using the characters as 'tragic lovers' rather than 'gay lovers' and by not overly pushing gay themes in the audiences face it could be subtly but more forcefully convincing audiences acceptance.

When the general [straight] audience is seeing the character as lovers instead of 'gay lovers' it builds empathy and acceptance. As tragic lovers they are separated by societies perception, and society is being directly spoken to through the audience. The empathy with the character as lovers is the thing that builds the acceptance by prompting the audience (society) to address their own ideals. This subtle promotion of acceptance is probably more powerful than most of the overtly gay themed films.

Using the actors that they used, instead of unknown gay actors, also works in their favor. It helps the audience further relate with a cast that they are both familiar and trusting of. And, Ang Lee is a fabulous director especially when it comes to love and all the feelings close to love.

Perhaps by subtly avoiding the major issues (such as societies acceptance) and by not pushing the film as a 'gay' film, it actually does these issues the greatest justice. It makes the audience and society re-evaluate their ideals, making everyone more empathic to, and increasingly accepting of gay relationships.

[David Ehrenstein]

By using the characters as 'tragic lovers' rather than 'gay lovers' and by not overly pushing gay themes in the audiences face it could be subtly but more forcefully convincing audiences acceptance.

How do you define "gay lovers" as opposed to 'tragic lovers"? Can you provide some examples of what you mean by "gay lovers" in the movies?

[jcelwin]

I'm sure you understand what I mean by tragic lovers, as lovers as so often tragic in stories (such as Romeo and Juliet).

By gay lovers I am refereing to lovers that are portrayed first and foremost as 'gay'. Stereotypical characters, such as: 'gay lovers' being hounded by packs of straight men, while perhaps being tragic are still first and foremost gay. It is a matter of the way the they are portrayed and most films that try to address gay issues do so in a very overt manner and lead to the use of stereotypes (I am obviously not saying that this is always bad though).

As for specific examples, sorry but I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head. Although characters such as those in 'The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' are obviously 'gay' first and foremost even if tragic (perhaps a bad example but I really can't think of any others at the moment).

[David Ehrenstein]

I really can't think of any others at the moment

Might I suggest that's because while you've got an ideological hook you have nothing to hang it on.

Here are some movies with "gay lovers" in them:

Sunday Bloody Sunday

Fox and His Friends

My Beautiful Laundrette

Mala Noche

Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train

A Home at the End of the World

I challenge you to find a single common denominator between any two of them.

[Michael]

If Shakespeare had written Romeo and Julio, then tell me if it would be any different than Romeo and Juliet. Now really think about it.

[David Ehrenstein]

If Shakespeare had written Romeo and Julio, then tell me if it would be any different than Romeo and Juliet. Now really think about it.

Yes. He would have written Edward II by Christopher Marlowe