criterionforum.org

I'd just like to clarify that my "straight creep" girlfriend (The BRZA in question) has spent nearly half her life volunteering for the AIDS Walk, volunteered for the local gay film festival, organizes and promotes dance parties with a group of gay, lesbian, drag queen friends, and a substantial chunk of her friend base is gay and lesbian. I guess any remaining debt to the homosexual community she was on the hook for was covered by enjoying a film with cowboys in love and didn't extend to agreeing with every utterance of a gay film critic.

Yep! I just love these 11th hour testimonials, don't you? Her work for AIDS charities is commendable, but it has absolutely no bearing on her lack of understanding of gay cinema.

Yawn.

The BRZA wrote:...it's not a movie about queer culture, it's a story of two people who fall in love and who, due to their circumstances, cannot be together as they would like to be. It's not a story that sets out to criticize or analyse our culture and the inherent homophobia that is a part of our society.

One man's 11th hour testimonial is another man's response to the name calling of one who knows nothing of the person he's insulting.

It's not a story that sets out to criticize or analyse our culture and the inherent homophobia that is a part of our society.

Hmm..I'm not so sure. Even though the film's being heralded as a love story, I think the film is more about the "seed" of homophobia as shown in Ennis' flashback as a kid that resulted in destroying the lives of everyone gay and straight. If it wasn't for that, then Brokeback Mountain wouldn't exist. Anyway, Ennis' flashback is the best scene of the film (IMO).

One man's 11th hour testimonial is another man's response to the name calling of one who knows nothing of the person he's insulting.

A person who for all her work with AIDS knows nothing about gay people in society -- as her statement about the film, which you persist in repeating, proves.

mymotherfuckingself wrote:...organizes and promotes dance parties with a group of gay, lesbian, drag queen friends, and a substantial chunk of her friend base is gay and lesbian.

Yes, just like a previous poster pages(?) back knew nothing of sex w/ another man, even though he was gay, which you would've noticed if you listened to anyone besides yourself, and had a boyfriend.

It's like discussing anything with a born again, they're always right due to the privileged position, and my mother, she always has to have to last word. So make another inane, reactionary comment, please and let me get back to promoting hate crimes.

You forgot the "harumpf!"

Lord have mercy. And I thought Andre J. & I had hit a brick wall. That was a fucking love-fest compared to this.

Michael wrote:

It's not a story that sets out to criticize or analyse our culture and the inherent homophobia that is a part of our society.

Hmm..I'm not so sure. Even though the film's being heralded as a love story, I think the film is more about the "seed" of homophobia as shown in Ennis' flashback as a kid that resulted in destroying the lives of everyone gay and straight. If it wasn't for that, then Brokeback Mountain wouldn't exist.

Anyway, Ennis' flashback is the best scene of the film (IMO).

Michael, from your previous posts I had gathered that you thought that this film got pretty much everything wrong, but it seems this is a somewhat striking moment, one that is perhaps dead on, and may go a long way in explaining the events of the film. I'm in no way denying that you could find one scene moving (or whatever) and the rest of the film total dreck. Again, I haven't seen the film yet, although that will change shortly, but I assure you I'm only interested in a rational discussion of how you felt the film worked and didn't work. Of course, if you've said all you have to say on the subject then I understand completely.

Here's a brief Annie Proulx interview.

Little known fact: This movie is actually based on the love affair between John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart!

Just kidding!!!

ben d banana, BBM rolled in our city last weekend and I had already promised my partner of nearly 9 years that I would go see it with him. So we went to see it and the second viewing was a different experience. It's because I'm now able to discuss BBM with my partner.

My biggest gripe with this whole BBM thing is how it's being treated, handled, promoted, etc. All of sudden, straight people are embracing this "universal love story of two human beings who happen to be men". Without recognizing and understanding the gay issues that we face everyday in our lives. Like your girlfriend who wrote: "...it's not a movie about queer culture, it's a story of two people who fall in love and who, due to their circumstances, cannot be together as they would like to be. It's not a story that sets out to criticize or analyse our culture and the inherent homophobia that is a part of our society. " She is one of the millions, millions who feel the same way. It saddens me to see how straight people seem to dismiss the fact that BBM is a queer story or otherwise, there wouldn't be BBM. So whose fault is it? The media? The ignorance of straight people? The director? The author?

That flashback scene (even though a very fleeting one) showing the homophobic killing of a gay man is my favorite part of the film for a good reason. That's one of the issues we face everyday. Two weeks ago, three guys beat up my best friend after he walked out of a gay club. His nose is all broken, almost losing it. But somehow BBM seems to misguide straight people into focusing on how universal love is ignoring the real issues, very much like Titanic in how the false romance seems to be the main subject, the central of the film, forgetting those hundreds of people who perished. A total cop out I must say.

That's it for now. More later.

Michael, I've now seen the film. I can understand your gripe about the marketing, although the complaints (as I've read them) seem to vary from it doesn't properly represent the queer issues to it glosses over its representation of queer issues.

The media misrepresents pretty much everything so it's hardly a surprise when they get something wrong. I have been of the impression that the "it's a love story not a queer story" sales pitch is to get the easily outraged, backwards thinking, American public out to a movie that A) the company is selling B) may cause them to confront and hopefully overcome their prejudices.

Of course straights are ignorant to the reality of queer issues, just as I'm ignorant to women's issues, racial issues, (wish I could say economic issues), etc. I understand gay bashing is very real, I've been punched out for being a "punk rock faggot." Still, I'm not gay and I'm not facing physical violence and absurd and extreme prejudices based on my mere existence on a regular basis. However, I do think the film (although not the marketing) through said scene, Ennis' fears, Ennis' flash or what may have happened to Jack, covers this potential and real violence, and the constant threat of it. If straight audiences see this and think it's the same thing as maybe getting hit in the crosswalk, then they're simply blind.

I don't understand the gripe with the marketing. Every marketing campaign is shameless and sensationalistic. If half the quotes on DVD cases were true we'd be living a second renaissance. Even objective movie critics tend to zazz things up to move print. Hating advertising is like hating lawyers or telemarketers, great if you have the time and energy but largely not worth the effort.

I, too, see Brokeback Mountain primarily as a small, intimate love story but saying that it skirts the issues of being gay is untrue. Aside from the fact that both leads are married, the reason they can't live happily ever after is because they're gay. They deal with such issues as coming to terms with themselves, fear of discovery and bigotry--not to mention the fact that

Spoiler

one of the characters is, unambiguously in my mind, beaten to death for being a homosexual at the end of the film

. Maybe other movies do it better or more thoroughly but I can't understand how it's a cop out. It seems to me like maybe you're looking for a rallying call to gay rights but this film is not, nor does it claim to be, nor should it have to be, a message movie.

And regarding Ehrenstein's article, you can hardly expect everyone to be as well versed in gay culture and so-related breakthroughs as you are. All of the movies you've listed are indie fare and classic territory and even I--being a giant film nerd--have only seen a couple of them. Thus, calling this a breakthrough is valid for the majority--I'll use the word mainstream--for the mainstream. And straight actors playing gay parts is less a conspiracy than a question of numbers (gay stars, like in the populous, being a minority.) I'm sure there is plenty of prejudice in Hollywood but Hollywood is also a whore and if someone draws in the crowds they're going get work, be they straight, gay, christian, jew or--especially, it seems--a crazy nut job.

Maybe I'm off base but the general impression I'm getting is that gay culture isn't being understood and accepted quickly enough. I think the ire directly at this movie and ben d banana's girlfriend could really be spent better elsewhere.

straight actors playing gay parts is less a conspiracy than a question of numbers (gay stars, like in the populous, being a minority.)

That's what you think! More to the point neither Heath Ledger no Jake Gyllenhaal are stars.

It seems to me like maybe you're looking for a rallying call to gay rights but this film is not, nor does it claim to be, nor should it have to be, a message movie.

Maybe for YOU! My expectations are considerably higher.

you can hardly expect everyone to be as well versed in gay culture and so-related breakthroughs as you are

No, just fellow critics. And they're NOT! They avoid gay films like the plague. Then this thing comes along all pre-chewed for them and they declare it a "breakthough"!

Maybe I'm off base but the general impression I'm getting is that gay culture isn't being understood and accepted quickly enough.

I don't care if gay culture is understood or accepted. Having its existence recognized is more than sufficient. And this film does not do that. In fact quite the opposite. It buries gay culture under a heap of moist hankies and crumpled Kleenex.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:And straight actors playing gay parts is less a conspiracy than a question of numbers (gay stars, like in the populous, being a minority.)

That two straight actors play the romantic leads in a mainstream gay film is based less on numbers, and more on the fact that being an openly gay or lesbian actor still generally spells death for a mainstream film career.

I wonder if actually casting gays and lesbians as characters of the same sexuality would not only lead to a rise in "straight" film stars finally coming out, but additionally to an increase in the amount of gay and lesbian actors entering the industry.

Anyway, I'm hesitant to blame the small number of openly gay actors on the population, especially considering the number of gays on stage. Brokeback Mountain could have found a gay actor somewhere in Hollywood - and a good one, too! - but chose to play it safe with straight actors. Too bad.

I forgot one glaring error, more for the misrepresented cowboys in the house, Linda Cardellini's character picks Steve Earle's "Devil's Right Hand" from the jukebox and asks Heath Ledger's character to dance some 10 years before the song was released.

David Ehrenstein wrote:That's what you think! More to the point neither Heath Ledger no Jake Gyllenhaal are stars.

Rising stars then. Known names.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Maybe for YOU! My expectations are considerably higher.

Not every movie has to be political. In fact, any movie will reach a wider audience if it stays as far away from politics as possible. Filmwise, I much prefer raised questions to forced answers.

David Ehrenstein wrote:No, just fellow critics. And they're NOT! They avoid gay films like the plague. Then this thing comes along all pre-chewed for them and they declare it a "breakthough"!

No critic can be well versed, or even interested, in everything.

David Ehrenstein wrote:I don't care if gay culture is understood or accepted. Having its existence recognized is more than sufficient. And this film does not do that. In fact quite the opposite. It buries gay culture under a heap of moist hankies and crumpled Kleenex.

I disagree with that one too.

I hadn't actually been keeping up on this thread, so I don't know if this was covered, but I wanted to add that the age make up in this movie was terrible. Was it 20 years that passed and the only change was that Donnie Darko'd grown a mustache? That's shoddy.

It seems to me like maybe you're looking for a rallying call to gay rights

Of course not. I just finished watching Tropical Malady for the sixth time. Nothing about it is political and it has a very original, smart and beautiful gay love story. Pay close attention to the eyes and faces of the lovers.. one glance from either one of them speaks much about love. Most important thing is that it feels utterly true and real.

Another film Mysterious Skin has an array of great gay characters....very realistic and varied and I could relate to every one of them on different levels. For a gay guy like myself to be able to identify with every one of the gay characters of various backgrounds, generations, etc is one of the ultimate successes of Mysterious Skin. One of the characters is Eric, the best friend of Neil.. a young gay guy with an extremely wonderful heart portrayed in such a honest manner (just as much as everyone in the film). There should be more characters like him in films.

zut wrote:[Anyway, I'm hesitant to blame the small number of openly gay actors on the population, especially considering the number of gays on stage. Brokeback Mountain could have found a gay actor somewhere in Hollywood - and a good one, too! - but chose to play it safe with straight actors. Too bad.

I haven't seen the film so I can't speak to it's substance, but I can't help jumping in vis a vis the above comment:

I'd say it's a safe bet the studio knew precisely what they were doing by casting straight males to play gay parts. They knew it'd raise eyebrows & hackles & set the world talking.... aside from the annoyance coming from purist quarters (which I'm not entirely sure I understand; well maybe I understand it but not sure I support it... i e an actor or director gets disqualified because in real life he's not actually what he's portraying onscreen?... in that case I have a lot of Charles Laughton classics & Whale-helmed flicks to deep six along with many others w the reverse scenario) they knew it'd trigger the silliest form of middle American navel gazing/water-cooler talk a la female/female kisses at the Grammy's/MTV awards, on some mass market network sitcom, etc. It creates a seperate spectacle simply because two straight men are engaging in gay behavior onscreen. If it were, say, made by a gay director, with gay actors, etc, the studio would think that middle america would simply see it as a gay film by gay people for gay people meant only for limited engagement in art-houses in 4 or 5 American cities. This cast/crewing of the picture gives them permission in their minds to crank up the media engine to blast the picture out there as an All American Film For Everyone... while slyly setting eyebrows & tongues a-wagging by getting straight guys to faux-hump. And to top it off they get to prompt a self-congraulatory dialog patting themselves on the back for Bravely & Truly Telling A Once Taboo Tale In The Right Way & Solemnly Trailblazing Valiant New Ground.

Again, I haven't seen it so I can't speak to it's substance. It may be a masterpiece, or it may constitute a barrell of rancid fish spit. I'm mostly disinterested, not because I'm a straight male, but because I've never been a big admirer of Ang Lee.

Your read out of this stunt casting is correct HerrSchreck. Brokeback Mountain was very clearly contrived to attract attention in this manner. What's sad is that it only serves to underscore the fact that "Gay movies" remain cultural lepers -- something for "them" to see, that the "mainstream" (ie. straights) can feel free to avoid. Their loss. Their very considerable loss.

A friend emailed me this and I thought it was hilarious!

HerrSchreck wrote:I'd say it's a safe bet the studio knew precisely what they were doing by casting straight males to play gay parts. They knew it'd raise eyebrows & hackles & set the world talking.... aside from the annoyance coming from purist quarters (which I'm not entirely sure I understand; well maybe I understand it but not sure I support it... i e an actor or director gets disqualified because in real life he's not actually what he's portraying onscreen?... in that case I have a lot of Charles Laughton classics & Whale-helmed flicks to deep six along with many others w the reverse scenario) they knew it'd trigger the silliest form of middle American navel gazing/water-cooler talk a la female/female kisses at the Grammy's/MTV awards, on some mass market network sitcom, etc. It creates a seperate spectacle simply because two straight men are engaging in gay behavior onscreen. If it were, say, made by a gay director, with gay actors, etc, the studio would think that middle america would simply see it as a gay film by gay people for gay people meant only for limited engagement in art-houses in 4 or 5 American cities. This cast/crewing of the picture gives them permission in their minds to crank up the media engine to blast the picture out there as an All American Film For Everyone... while slyly setting eyebrows & tongues a-wagging by getting straight guys to faux-hump. And to top it off they get to prompt a self-congraulatory dialog patting themselves on the back for Bravely & Truly Telling A Once Taboo Tale In The Right Way & Solemnly Trailblazing Valiant New Ground.

On this we agree.

ben d banana wrote:On this we agree.

This makes two.

David E, how would you respond to gay people who embrace BBM? At the screening that I went to here recently, 2/3 of the audience was gay men and when Directed by Ang Lee appeared on the black screen in the end, the whole house applauded. My partner Pedro wept all the way home and he complained all that night long that his head hurt so much from the emotions. After hearing my thoughts for days now, he finds them valid but he still swears by his love for BBM no matter what. Am I missing something? Or have I grown too jaded?