Brokeback Mountain - the Jasun Review... **Major Spoiler Alert**

Well, Ang, you've done it again...

You've managed to take otherwise strong, proud and enduring Hollywood Staples and turn them into whiney and spineless turds. Your characters all have superpowers of some sort, like flying through the air while awkwardly flailing their arms, turning into big boogers or having really great gay sex, but you still manage to make them all into wimps. I'm impressed with your track record.

You've done it to Martial Arts Warriors, making them all irritating, obnoxious, annoying and just plain boring people... The only part of Crouching Tiger worth seeing was at the end when that chick finally offed herself. I had felt like doing it for the back 2 thirds of the movie. Fuck, I hated that bitch.

You've done it to Comic book heros, with your abominable "Hulk" which is quite possibly the movie that took the crown of "Worst comic book adaptation" away from "Spawn". Not an easy thing to do. In your inept hands, Bruce Banner was just a hansom twit who was unable to find his nads with a magnifying glass. Seeing him whine and wimper and moan his way through his "Oh-So-Unfair" life and then turn into that Green thing (which was supposed to be The Incredible Hulk but seemed more like that Toenail Fungus thing from the TV commercial) for no apparent reason was just painful.

Well, congratulations. You've done it yet again. You've now taken cowboys and turned them into whiney, wimpy, spineless losers. Not able to actually be "gay", they need to go through all that "I'm not queer but I'll take it in the ass from you" shit.. hey it was the 60s.. I get it... and then they marry women. But once that's all said and done, they just whine and wimper and cry and sneak and secretly love each other through the years.. but even when the sad truth is discovered, nothing really happnes.. shit, nothing really changes. Their wives just kinda help them cover it all up because hey - they're spineless too.

Sure, it's got some good performances in it, and yeah, I really did care for a bit, but eventually, I get tired of seeing people who just need to stand up for themselves instead choose to just roll over and play dead.

**Major Spoiler Alert**

And to just drive it home that these people deserve all the pain and suffering heaped upon them, they can't even tell the truth once one of them is beaten to death. Once a lame-ass liar, always a lame-ass liar I guess. I suppose that if one is a lame-ass, spineless, sneaky, whiney, wimpy, lying turd who'd rather be miserable than be happy, I'm sure you'll see a bit of yourself in this movie.

The rest of us will just walk out of the theater happy that we have nads.


I'm going to be nice and give this 2/5

Sounds like a load a crap to me...

Thanks for the review...now the boyfriend and I can save the money and see "Walk the line" instead this weekend.

Lee

by Joe Morgenstern in today's Wall Street Journal

One of the best lines in Ang Lee's beautiful "Brokeback Mountain" is the last line of the spare Annie Proulx short story that the movie was adapted from: "If you can't fix it you've got to stand it." The it is the dilemma faced by two cowboys, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. Ennis and Jack, who are played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, love each other passionately. Yet they can't live together in the Marlboro Country of the 1960s and 1970s, so they try to hide their love behind shaky façades of heterosexual domesticity. The it is also the love itself, which at first seems baffling to these two manly men, as if it were a thing apart, rather than the force that gives meaning to their lives. Love stories come and go, but this one stays with you -- not because both lovers are men, but because their story is so full of life and longing, and true romance.

The film takes its own good time getting started. Ennis and Jack meet when they're hired to herd sheep on the mountain of the title. Soon they've got all the time in the world to savor the glories of alpine Wyoming -- crystalline skies, wildflowers, snow showers, a slow-moving tide of sheep alongside a fast-running stream. They become part of the landscape, a pair of lonely, overgrown boys with tales of failure to tell and energy to burn. (Ennis, the taciturn one, turns downright garrulous in Jack's presence.) Their first sexual encounter grows out of huddling together in a pup tent to keep warm. It's explosive, animalistic and so unbidden that both men hasten to agree it was a "one-shot thing." Yet their bond will endure for a decade, which the film spans with bold leaps that may initially seem like disjunctures. "Brokeback Mountain" aspires to an epic sweep and achieves it, though with singular intimacy and grace.

Movies made from short stories often seem thin; it's usually sprawling novels that provide rich detail and texture. This one is an exception, thanks to the superb adaptation by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, but Ang Lee's film is exceptional in other ways. The Taiwan-born director works like an American master; every nuance feels right, every scene has its rewards and surprises. As for the performances, they range from superb to superlative. It's no news that Jake Gyllenhaal is a fine actor, and his Jack is a mercurial mix of plain, poetic and practical. But the triumph is that of Heath Ledger, a young Australian who has been known until now as a hunky heartthrob. He's certainly handsome enough here, but in a touchingly bleak, self-contained way. He doesn't portray his powerful, sometimes rageful cowboy so much as release him -- slowly, quietly, tactfully, economically, even reluctantly, or so it would seem, until he has outed Ennis's lyrical soul.

Is America ready for Marlboro men who love men? That remains to be seen, but "Brokeback Mountain" ought to be seen for the stirring entertainment that it is. Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams are eloquent as, respectively, Jack's and Ennis's uncomprehending wives. Rodrigo Prieto's camera feasts on the lovely simplicity of Judy Becker's production design, while letting the scenery sing for itself. Gustavo Santaolalla's score reflects the film as a whole -- it's simultaneously spare and deeply affecting.

Yeah,. I read a lot of five star reviews and got shamed into going being told that I was totally wrong about what I thought the movie would be.

Well, I wasn't.

Apparently Jake Gyle-thing-a-hootie said that the movie plays better to stragith audiences who like to see their homosexuals full of internal torture than to gay audiences who like to see their homosexuals strong.

Whatever. I thought it was a piece of crap.

Like all Ang Lee movies, nobody really learns anything, even in the end. Looks good, though.. cinematography was really good, which is something, anyway.

I should point out, though, that I fucking HATE chick flicks, and this is just a chick flick with an extra dick.

But I'm sure my mom would LOVE it. Mind you, she also likes Jullia Roberts movies.

Well, Jasun, you knew that *I* was going to disagree with you on all counts. In fact, I don't agree with a single one of your assessments, and I think you focus on all the wrong aspects.

What your review of the movie fails to address is that the two main characters are a product of their time, which is a key point in the film's portrayal of gay love. The two men meet in 1963, in a time in which living an openly gay life was uheard of. It carries them through the early '80s, sure, but again, they are products of a time in which such a thing was unheard of. That they do not embrace being gay is an entirely plausible situation. I dare say that if you met a man you were in love with in 1963 in Montana (of all places), you would have a much different outlook on the film. Forget that you're an openly gay man living in 2005. Put yourself in their shoes. Hell, even just coming from Pennsylvania, I completely understand what these characters went through. I eventually chose to come out when I was 20, after gonig away to college, but even then, in the early 90s, "gay" was something that was more commonly accepted than it was in the 60s, 70s and early 80s.

Also, one of the characters is not beaten to death. The vision that Ennis has at the end is that of Jack being gay-bashed, but in reality, that is more than likely not what actually happened to him. In his mind, Jack's wife is making the story up to cover up what Ennis suspects could be a fag-bashing, but I'm pretty sure this is shown only to further demonstrate how Ennis cannot let go of his internalized homophobia.

The movie is lyrically majestic on all counts. Most importantly, it avoids all the common clihes and pitfalls that most gay films are commonly riddled with (the over-the-top histrionics, the heavy-handed theatrics, the ridiculously gratutitous and sensationalistic focus on sex) and instead captures with vivid reality the universal experience of falling in love. The film lifts itself out of the "gay ghetto" of filmmaking and presents itself as a movie for ANYONE -- gay or straight -- to enjoy. There is nobody that cannot relate to the basic experiences that these two men have. Forget about the fact that they are two men. Just focus on the love itself.

Not all love stories should end happily ever after. Not everybody is able to see life from the same point of view that you do. Hell, even today, there are people who live in the closet. The film presents a true-to-life scenario that remains a cautionary tale for anyone who chooses to do so. It presents us with a very important question: When it comes to love, what kind of a world do we want to live in?

By the way, I thought you were adamantly opposed to even seeing the movie. Aren't you the one who posted on this very board that you refused to see it because you didn't want to sit through a movie in which the characters didn't end up together? Seems a bit silly to me that you would go see it, knowing exactly what to expect, then come on here and lambast it for being exactly what it was and what you knew it was going to be. That's like going to see the movie version of Phantom of the Opera and then panning it because it was a musical. Silly head. :)

Personally, I think it's a bold, brave and intensely fulfilling movie. Everybody should go see it, if only for the reason that should the film prove to be successful, it will pave the way for many other mainstream films with gay characters and themes. Get off your asses and go see the frickin' movie. You owe it to the gay community. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

What your review of the movie fails to address is that the two main characters are a product of their time, which is a key point in the film's portrayal of gay love.

---

Actually, I think I said "Yeah, it was the 60s.. I get it"

Quote:

---

Also, one of the characters is not beaten to death. The vision that Ennis has at the end is that of Jack being gay-bashed, but in reality, that is more than likely not what actually happened to him. In his mind, Jack's wife is making the story up to cover up what Ennis suspects could be a fag-bashing, but I'm pretty sure this is shown only to further demonstrate how Ennis cannot let go of his internalized homophobia.

---

Ok, one of us read this wrong... I thought it was the wife, yet again, pretending the nothing was out of order and making up a cover story about how he died.

Quote:

---

The film lifts itself out of the "gay ghetto" of filmmaking and presents itself as a movie for ANYONE -- gay or straight -- to enjoy. There is nobody that cannot relate to the basic experiences that these two men have.

---

well, I must be neither, then, cuz I thought it was boring as hell.

Quote:

---

By the way, I thought you were adamantly opposed to even seeing the movie. Aren't you the one who posted on this very board that you refused to see it because you didn't want to sit through a movie in which the characters didn't end up together?

---

That's not exactly what I said... I didn't want to sit through a movie that I knew would have a bunch of wimps for characters.. my motorcycle club insisted that I go for a matinee. And hey.. at least I got to hang with them. It wasn't because they didn't end up together that I didn't want to see it, exactly, it was more like "Why bother with another 'I love you but I'm going back to women'" movie?

Quote:

---

You owe it to the gay community. :)

---

Ok.. that's just silly. What you owe to the gay community is to be out and proud and live your life that way, not see a movie about people who couldn't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Apparently Jake Gyle-thing-a-hootie said that the movie plays better to stragith audiences who like to see their homosexuals full of internal torture than to gay audiences who like to see their homosexuals strong.
Whatever. I thought it was a piece of crap.

---

Well I haven't seen the movie yet, but will. However I noticed in the WSJ review that the screenplay is by Larry McMurtry. Well I've read Lonesome Dove and the Last Picture Show..... I think it would be safe to say that many of McMurtry's characters - depicting the modern day male in the West - are all filled with internal emotions.

Just go watch Hud sometimes, which is a great old movie. It's not really a gay thing - more of a genre thing. Movies like the Last Picture Show are what made the Westerns in the 1970s different from the John Wayne "strong" western man characters from decades earlier.

Maybe you just don't like the way that genre treats men in general.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Maybe you just don't like the way that genre treats men in general.

Steve

---

That's possible. I did like HUD, as I remember, but I saw it years ago. I dont' expect everyone to walk away from this movie as irritated as I was.. but I figured I'd let y'all know what I thought. And I thought it sucked chunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

That's possible. I did like HUD, as I remember, but I saw it years ago. I dont' expect everyone to walk away from this movie as irritated as I was.. but I figured I'd let y'all know what I thought. And I thought it sucked chunks.

---

Well, and I would say that's b/cuz you walked into the theater already clearly expecting not to like it. You said yourself a while back you didn't want to see it, and so you walked in there having (by your own accord) been dragged to see it, knowing full well that you were not going to like it, and you still come out bitching about it for all the wrong reasons. How can we take you seriously when you admit to having a bias against it in the first place? You were looking for flaws right from the moment you sat down.

What I personally LOVE about Ang Lee's films is that they are not, as you insinuate, glorifications of "spineless" characters. Lee's films gently and humanely capture the despair and loneliness of societal repression and oppression. From Sense and Sensibility to The Ice Storm to Crouching Tiger, Lee reveals the evils that come from forcing societal restraints upon his characters. To call the characters "spineless" is to completely overlook the whole point of the movie (and, indeed, all of his movies), which is to show that it is not the characters who are fault, but rather society at large for shoving such constraints upon them. In this token, Lee's films are, in fact, message films that incite people to break out of these constraints and live their lives free from such suffocating boundaries.

And why blame Ang Lee for the way the movie turns out, when the real "culprit" is Annie Proulx, the author of the short story. Lee didn't write the script. What was he supposed to have done? Change it so they end up happily ever after?

Furthermore, it's important to note that not all of Lee's films follow this same trajectory. If you look at either The Wedding Banquet (his first "gay film"), it ends quite happily, and the characters do break out of their social constraints in the end. Also, in the luminous Eat Drink Man Woman, the film is a loving testament to familial bonds and tradition that does not end unhappily for its characters. So, in fact, you're quite mistaken in your assessment of Lee's oeuvre.

To view this film as one that glorifies gay characters being spineless is, again, to miss the point. It's no different than, say, The Age of Innocence, or even Romeo and Juliet, films that show that not all love stories end happily ever after. Sometimes, love just isn't enough. In this case, it happens to be two men in love with each other.

And if you really "got" the whole 1960s thing, then you wouldn't accuse the film of perpetuating the notion that gay characters can't stand up for themselves. You can't fault a movie for honestly revealing the reality of its day. If the film had been set in contemporary times, then, OK, you would have a point, but you choose to overlook the fact that the movie is , for all intents and purposes, a period piece so that you can't rant and rave about it portrays the "wrong" images of gay people--when, in fact, the film's message couldn't be more opposite.

But again, what I would suggest to others to consider before letting Jasun's review sway you into not seeing the movie is that he has admitted to A) not like love stories (or, as he refers to them in sexist terms, "chick flicks") and B) he did not want to see the movie in the first place, so his opinion of it was tainted from the start. Meaning no disrespect at all to you, Jasun, but you're not exactly the person I would ask for an honest, ojbective review of this movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Ok.. that's just silly. What you owe to the gay community is to be out and proud and live your life that way, not see a movie about people who couldn't do that.

---

You know what I mean. If we want to continue seeing movies that reflect our lives, then yes, we are obligated to go out and support them. If gay movies bomb, Hollywood will continue to say that they are not marketable. It's up to us to make sure that [IBrokeback[/I] and movies that depict gay life get the attention and respect they deserve. Otherwise, we have no right to complain that Hollywood won't make movies about our lives. That's my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

I should point out, though, that I fucking HATE chick flicks, and this is just a chick flick with an extra dick.

---

I must also address this point, b/cuz as I pointed out in my other post, I find this terminology to be archaic and rather sexist. I know you didn't coin this phrase, Jasun, so I'm directing my comments at you directly, but I do resent the notion that men cannot relate to films that tell love stories. I think it's absurd to categorize movies such as, say, Pretty Woman or even Steel Magnolias, as movies that only women can appreciate. If that were the case, then Brian's Song would not have been the huge hit that it was. The same is true for Titanic. Obviously, "weepers" (as they are also referred to) might do better among women, b/cuz let's be honest, women are usually a lot more in touch with their emotions than men are.

But you do not have to be woman to appreciate Brokeback Mountain. You need only be a person who appreciates movies that explore the universal experiences that all people--male or female--go through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

I know you didn't coin this phrase, Jasun, so I'm directing my comments at you directly,

---

Shit, that was supposed to say "NOT directing my comments at you directly."

Damn it.

:)

I didnt see the movie yet and wont read your entire post because I dont want a spoiler, but I say thank you to Ang for putting this together. He didnt have to do a story about us for us.

As gay people we get shit on and kicked in the stomach all day long by people who "Dont approve of homosexuality", so I am ALL FOR anyone who wants to show gay people in a positive light.

Maybe when you live in LA or NYC or SF and are totally surrounded and immersed by gay life, then you can be picky about a gay movie not being totally to your liking.
But if it can make some people who dont live in a major city and arent exposed to gay people open up their minds to the idea that 2 men are genuinely in love and they have to live a lie to try to fit in, then it might make people see that were human too, and not the 18 year old anonymous barebacking partying bathhouse hopping meth addicts the news portrays us as so often.

15 years ago you never say gay people on tv. It was never even mentioned. So stuff like this is very good for us.

Some people will see that movie and say that its sad those 2 cowboys had to lie and get married to women when they didnt want to. They should have just stayed together.
Isnt that great?!

People like Ang are doing us a big favor.

how 'bout READ THE STORY?

i'm not a fan of short stories generally but Proulx's Brokeback Mountain was excellent for its spare use of language to draw out the characters of these two men.

It was an evocative story well worth reading.

From what i gather, the movie has been 'filled out' with narrative to build up the 'non gay' portion of the cowboys' lives. Unfortunately, the only thing this does is take the focus away from the core relationship that these two men have.

I'll wait til the movie comes out on video to see Jake and Heath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Furthermore, it's important to note that not all of Lee's films follow this same trajectory. If you look at either The Wedding Banquet (his first "gay film"), it ends quite happily, and the characters do break out of their social constraints in the end.

---

Wow.. I came out of that with a total different spin on it...

that's a movie about a spineless guy who can't tell his parents to stop meddling in his life, and can't just live life for himself. he marries a girl, throws a whole sham of a party, gets drunk, has sex with a girl (which happens ALL the time ), and ruins his own life and betrays his own boyfriend becuase he can't tell his parents to bugger off.

oh, and he stays in the closet... and in the end, it turns out that it's all for naught, becuase Dad knew the whole time but was still too spinless on his own accord to tell his son "It's ok, i know you're gay".

his dad goes back to Asia without tellign his son this and the two continue to think the other one doesn't know what's up.

the end.


not exactly breaking out of social restraints.

Look. i know that a lot of people liked this movie. i didn't.. i didnt like the characters and I didn't really enjoy watching people who can't get over something not get over it.

I know that it's gay history, and I guess it's good to know where we came from, but I still thought this movie was a bore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

You know what I mean. If we want to continue seeing movies that reflect our lives, then yes, we are obligated to go out and support them.

---

this movie does not reflect my life at all, though.

And honestly, it's kinda sad that if i'm to be a good gay man, i have to go racing out to spend my money on movies that bore me and don't really entertain me so I can see more movies that bore me...

kinda vicious circle.

I understand that there aren't many movies with gay characters and there are very few gay love stories out there, but fail to see how that means that when there's one that I know I'm not gonna like, I still have to see it to support.. um.. more of them.

I'd rather see Harry Potter again (which by the way, does NOT have a happy ending).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhys

how 'bout READ THE STORY?
From what i gather, the movie has been 'filled out' with narrative to build up the 'non gay' portion of the cowboys' lives. Unfortunately, the only thing this does is take the focus away from the core relationship that these two men have.

---

Actually, while it is true that the female roles have been fleshed out, the film never loses it focus on the two men and their relationship with each other. That remains to be the central focus of the movie.

It's worth seeing on the big screen, if for no other reason than to help turn the movie into a sleeper hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Look. i know that a lot of people liked this movie. i didn't.. i didnt like the characters and I didn't really enjoy watching people who can't get over something not get over it.

---

NOW we're getting somewhere. I can see your point, but man, I'd hate to see how you'd treat a friend of yours who wasn't out to his family or to his friends. It seems you have absolutely no patience for anyone who doesn't live their life by your seemingly strict standards of courage and/or conviction. People make the choices they do, and I guess I have more compassion for these characters than you did.

I guess I look at it a different way. I just love movies that capture humanity, and this film captures humanity in a beautiful, graceful way. It's lyrical and evocative and gorgeous and surprisingly restrained considering the subject matter.

I can totally see how some might find the film a bore. You either like love stories or you don't. That's cool. If you dislike the movie for the same reasons you may dislike other movies that are similar, then that's fine. But I think it's unfair to hold the film up to different standards because the characters are gay. Where is it written that films featuring gay characters must have happy endings? Are we stuck in such a self-indudced pattern of victimization that we see everything featuring gay characters as an affront to our community if those characters don't end up fulfilling our expectations? To not like the movie because the gay characters don't walk happily hand-in-hand into the sunset is to pander to the gay community's insistence on portraying itself as victims. This is the biggest problem with most films made by and for the gay community.

Are the characters in this movie victims? Sure. But they are victims of their time. It makes sense that they made the choices they did. That's what makes it different from the myriad of other films in which gay characters were portrayed tragically. But the film is not encouraging anybody to stay in the closet and be a victim. Similar to Ibsen's play Ghosts (which was written in response to critics who lambasted him for letting Nora walk out on her husband in A Doll's House), the film is an indictment of the victimization that some have claimed it romanticizes.

Boring for some, maybe, but it's an incredibly important and bold film for our community. That's my point, and I'm sticking to it.

I just guess that means we won't be going to see any "chick flicks" together.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

this movie does not reflect my life at all, though.

And honestly, it's kinda sad that if i'm to be a good gay man, i have to go racing out to spend my money on movies that bore me and don't really entertain me so I can see more movies that bore me...

kinda vicious circle.

---

Well, only if you are one of those people who expects movies to bore you.

Once they start making more films with gay characters in them, the films themselves will be become more varied and diverse in tone and theme. That's the cycle that I think we should focus on. The more gay movies they make, the more chances that you'll like some of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

If you dislike the movie for the same reasons you may dislike other movies that are similar, then that's fine. But I think it's unfair to hold the film up to different standards because the characters are gay. Are we stuck in such a self-indudced pattern of victimization that we see everything featuring gay characters as an affront to our community if those characters don't end up fulfilling our expectations? To not like the movie because the gay characters don't walk happily hand-in-hand into the sunset is to pander to the gay community's insistence on portraying itself as victims. This is the biggest problem with most films made by and for the gay community. :)

---

But don't you get that it's not the happy ending that wasn't there?.. it's that there was no ending to speak of... just a begining and a middle.

I really hate movies where the characters don't ever learn anything and grow.. the just wimper until the credits roll.

And that's what I find all Ang Lee movies do.

the guys in this story had a big challenge to over come, and they didn't... they just went crashing..

i also don't care for ang lee - for the same reasons - and i hate chick flicks. i also don't feel just because there are important gay characters in a movie that the gay community is somehow required to like it. and the same applies to any group in a movie.

no one watching a commercial movie owes it to anybody to like it.

and might i point out that jasun's friend and temporary roommate is not out to his family. no problems on that horizon that i've heard of.

years ago, there was a tv series that everyone said was very female-empowering. this was probably enough to make me not watch it, but my mother loved it. i saw a rerun of the first one, and what i saw was the female character - a doctor - is taking most of her decisions from some half-breed (or maybe full) indian dude who had rebel and future-romantic-lead written all over him. it was the same disempowering crap but better disguised. you can imagine how popular i was for pointing that out to people.

jasun is entitled to his opinion even if it disagrees with our opinions AND our politics. ken, you've written things on this board not everyone agreed with, but no one chided you for it and made it seem like you didn't have a right to your opinions.

we all owe it to ourselves to BE ourselves or how can we be part of an honest community?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

jasun is entitled to his opinion even if it disagrees with our opinions AND our politics. ken, you've written things on this board not everyone agreed with, but no one chided you for it and made it seem like you didn't have a right to your opinions.

we all owe it to ourselves to BE ourselves or how can we be part of an honest community?

---

I'm perfectly fine with Jasun not liking the movie. My point is that if you're going to dislike it, dislike it for the right reasons. If you don't like it b/cuz it's a chick flick/love story and you don't think the characters learn anything, fine. I can accept that. But again, I think it's unfair to judge the movie more harshly b/cuz it features gay characters. That is predominantly my point.

I just think this is a very important film. Whether you like it or not is not really my concern. It's that the gay community support films that speak to the gay community's experiences. And yes, sorry, but I do think that if we want to see more of those movies, then we are obligated to go out and support them. Otherwise, they won't keep making them.

Now, if you don't care whether they make movies with gay characters, then don't go see it. I'm fine with that, too. Everyone is more than entitled to their opinion. But I just don't want to hear people complaining about the lack of films with gay characters or how Hollywood always gets it wrong when they don't do their part in supporting those films.

It's like voting. You can't complain about the government unless you participate.

there is no "wrong reasons" to dislike anything. we all dislike things for our own reasons.

and a lot of people would rather not see more closeted characters who end up gay-bashed. i, for one, would like to see movies with gay characters who are not killed and who live their lives - including their romantic and sex lives - as an affirmation rather than a taboo. secrecy is a lifestyle for many groups of people, but it's not a happy choice.

besides the wacky gay men of le cage, you don't see a lot of out men or women in movies who play the main parts without dying. funny, in real life, i see lots of men who are out and who have a full life without pretending to be straight. that's who i want to see in movies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

You know what I mean. If we want to continue seeing movies that reflect our lives, then yes, we are obligated to go out and support them. If gay movies bomb, Hollywood will continue to say that they are not marketable. It's up to us to make sure that [IBrokeback[/I] and movies that depict gay life get the attention and respect they deserve. Otherwise, we have no right to complain that Hollywood won't make movies about our lives. That's my point.

---

Here, Here! Even if you are inclined to think you will walk out, buying the ticket now gives hollywood the rationale to want to allow distribution on more of these movies...good or bad. And, either good or bad, it will help carry the message of tolerance, understanding and hopefully growing acceptance of our community, thus perhaps more equality in the rights we seek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

But again, I think it's unfair to judge the movie more harshly b/cuz it features gay characters. That is predominantly my point.

---

at what point did I suggest I was being harsher on it because of gay characters?

I said it was typical Ang Lee tripe... weak minded characters who learn nothing over the course of the film. I judged it as harshly as his other shitty movies, most of which have no gay characters. I think I was even nicer.. I said that this has some good performances.. there are no good performances to be found in "Hulk".

And really... if this is what main stream "gay cinema" is going to be... I think I'd rather see other movies with stronger characters who are straight.

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

and a lot of people would rather not see more closeted characters who end up gay-bashed.

---

Well that's really it, isn't it?

I had hoped that we'd moved past the point where the gay character had to be miserable for the whole movie and then die at the end about 20 years ago.

gay men and women who have sex with multiple partners gotta die or reform or suffer for hollywood to make them the main characters in a movie :(

oh, sorry - unless we can laugh at their wacky antics or they are not main characters. pretty sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Well that's really it, isn't it?

I had hoped that we'd moved past the point where the gay character had to be miserable for the whole movie and then die at the end about 20 years ago.

---

Interesting, and perhaps I shouldn't say much as I haven't seen the movies. I simply find that what comes from hollywood, good, bad, or indifferent is about how much money they can score, not what social redeeming value they might have or not.

That being said, I don't think that one should simply support something because it has gay characters, or native characters or whatever flavour. You support something because it sends a real message, and if images of men loving each other like any straight couple do is the image, then yes support it but if it is to enforce a narrow view of a group, then no I can't support that simply because its got gays in it.

As much as some might argue, what comes across on the big screen and the boob tube does influence people. To what extent is based on how the viewer's own stability is. Violence does beget violence, stereotyping people into being weak, snivelling, doesn't get that group sympathy or support when it comes to standing up for them.

I remember when I did a lot of international travelling, and often at the end of a trip, people would say they had no idea Canadians were so different than Americans, simply because their only clue was thru the media and all they saw was Americans. They knew Canada was a neighbour so assumed we would be no different. If people see things that are always re-inforcing the same stereo type, then that is what they believe until proof hits them in the face.

Goebbells made an interesting comment, tell the lie long enough, loud enough, and only the lie, and people will believe it.

Simply because the characters are gay is not, in my view, any reason to support anything. There is too many who go with the catch phrase of the day, and believe that any message is better than none. I'd rather someone not know what gays are like than believe they are all pansies, all weak, all deceitful, all snivelling whining shells.

But just my opinion.:coffee:

actually it's not just your opinion. can't i share?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

But just my opinion.:coffee:

---

For you, anytime Basschick.. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

gay men and women who have sex with multiple partners gotta die or reform or suffer for hollywood to make them the main characters in a movie :(

oh, sorry - unless we can laugh at their wacky antics or they are not main characters. pretty sad.

---

Oh man... how many times have we seen movies with gay characters that were there only for the straight people to laugh at? The Bird Cage comes to mind... nobody learns anyting at all.. we get to laugh at the funny queers for a while, some silly hijinks get played out, and then the homophobic senator has to endure the humiliation of being in drag for a minute to escape unseen by the press... but he's just as homophobic at the end, hasn't changed, and the gay characters are still just there to laugh at.

oh, and the vaguely hompphobic son who's ruined his fathers' relationship skips merrily away.

Hollywood movies only depcit two kinds of gay characters... the screaming queen there for us to laugh at, or the cowarly closet case who dies of an sTD or gay bashing in the third act.

Not sure why I should be supporting this film at all.

But then again.. that's just me.

If this film reaches some gay kid in Illinois and shows him that he's gotta come out or he'll die lonely.. well.. maybe a bit of good is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

there is no "wrong reasons" to dislike anything. we all dislike things for our own reasons.

and a lot of people would rather not see more closeted characters who end up gay-bashed. i, for one, would like to see movies with gay characters who are not killed and who live their lives - including their romantic and sex lives - as an affirmation rather than a taboo. secrecy is a lifestyle for many groups of people, but it's not a happy choice.

besides the wacky gay men of le cage, you don't see a lot of out men or women in movies who play the main parts without dying. funny, in real life, i see lots of men who are out and who have a full life without pretending to be straight. that's who i want to see in movies!

---

Again, the fate of Jake's character is ambiguous. In the book, it is made clear that the gay-bashing is Ennis' version of what happens to Jack. In the film, it is also made clear that it is Ennis' imagination. Now, whether one choose to believe that Jack dies b/cuz of a gay-bashing depends on whether or not one chooses to subscribe to a victim complex. The explanation for Jack's death is very specific, and I don't see that there is any reason to believe that he died of any other cause. Unless you WANT to believe that.

I'm more than well aware of Hollywood's track record in its presentation of gay characters. Philadelphia and In and Out are both well-meaning but very flawed films in that they are non-threatening, emasculated presentations of gay people.

But the biggest problem with those films is that the characters are living in the modern day, when gay people have made a lot more advancements socially. Again, the thing to remember in watching Brokeback is that it depicts the experience of two men living in Wyoming in the 1960s, a totally different time and place. I'm sorry, but you'd have to be pretty ignorant--or somebody who is looking for a reason to trash the movie--to equate gay people of the 1960s to gay people of today. It just doesn't mesh. This film does NOT represent today's gay community. It does not intend to. It merely represents the experience of two characters who felt that, because of the time they were living in and experieces they had had, they were not able to live openly as gay partners.

It's also VERY worth noting that Jake Gyllenhaal's characters DOES attempt to convince Heath Ledger's character to shuck social convention and settle down together. This VERY important part of the story is one that Jasun chose to overlook. I don't see that as a representation of him being spineless at all. So he goes back to his wife and kids and lives the life of a "straight man." Big deal. So do THOUSANDS of men today. Spineless? Maybe. But it's also called REALITY. And THAT is what I look for in the movies that I go to see, not ridiculously trite happy Hollywood endings in which all the characters learn something. Some of my favorite movies are those in which we are presented with a slice of life. I don't need to be spoonfed a trumped-up happy ending to say that a film has merit. I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

What I like about Brokeback is that it does not shy away from the men's sexual relationship. The initial sex scene is extremely graphic and even brutal. It's not a "Hollywood-ized" sex scene at all. There's no hint of romance or seduction. It's a bold depiction of male-on-male intimacy. Furthermore, this is really the first Hollywood film--apart from Making Love--that has the balls to let its gay characters engage in such sexual relations with each other--and they DON'T feel guilty for having done so. The characters are not victims of guilt or shame. They are clearly in love with each other and clearly WANT to be with each other. The only thing stopping them--in their minds, yes--is society's attitude toward gay people. But it does not stop them from being together every chance they get. I'm sorry, but this is a very prevalent reality even today. Lots of people still do the things that are expected of them, and you know what... some of them never learn.

The truth is that Hollywood is infamously slow on making movies that show gay--or even black or Asian--characters living free and clear of others' expectations. Brokeback, however, is a bold step for Hollywood. It's a love story in the grandest Hollywood tradition. They don't treat these characters any differently because they are gay. They get the same treatment as the characters in The Age of Innocence and Casablanca--two other films that do not have happy endings for their characters. In fact, one could even look at this as a gay Casablanca. Personally, I think it was more bold of Annie Proulx to tell this story, to NOT pander to the gay community's insistence that all representations of gay characters be those in which the characters are fully adjusted and living out and proud lives. I want to see flawed characters. I WANT to see characters who don't always make the "right" choices. Sorry, but I want REAL LIFE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Oh man... how many times have we seen movies with gay characters that were there only for the straight people to laugh at? The Bird Cage comes to mind... nobody learns anyting at all.. we get to laugh at the funny queers for a while, some silly hijinks get played out, and then the homophobic senator has to endure the humiliation of being in drag for a minute to escape unseen by the press... but he's just as homophobic at the end, hasn't changed, and the gay characters are still just there to laugh at.

oh, and the vaguely hompphobic son who's ruined his fathers' relationship skips merrily away.

Hollywood movies only depcit two kinds of gay characters... the screaming queen there for us to laugh at, or the cowarly closet case who dies of an sTD or gay bashing in the third act.

Not sure why I should be supporting this film at all.

But then again.. that's just me.

If this film reaches some gay kid in Illinois and shows him that he's gotta come out or he'll die lonely.. well.. maybe a bit of good is done.

---

For the record, I think this is a good representation of perhaps an underlying reason for you not liking the film. It would certainly seem to indicate such a thing. It's what I felt was coming through in your earlier posts, even if you didn't say so directly.

oh, it's exactly why I didn't like it.

that, and it was kinda boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

oh, it's exactly why I didn't like it.

that, and it was kinda boring.

---

Weren't you the one who said,

Quote:

---

at what point did I suggest I was being harsher on it because of gay characters?

---

I think you just said it. :)

I have to disagree with you jason, I finally saw the movie and I have to say being from a samll cowtown in the middle of nowhere and being a child in the 60's and 70's I felt like I was looking at what could have been. I go back to that place every now and then and see the same guys I fucked in high school there with their aging wives and college age kids....

The probably feel pity for me (being gay and out) and I feel pity for them......

I got out as far as I am concnerned I was the lucky one...

I did wince at one point in the movie when Heath Lefger was talking about two old gay men that lived close to them and one was dragged to death and left to die becasue he was gay.....Something close to that happend in my home town about 15 years ago.....A man clubbed to death in his dairy milking cows while his lover and mother were in town xmas shopping.....Hard to believe that something like that could happen...It left a very chilling affect on me.....YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK.....YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.

It might not have been perfect but too me it was very real. I have to say after seeing most of the gay themed movies that have come out over the past few years I enjoyed this tremendously....