Originally Posted by
XXXWriterDude
The short answer: Gay paranoia.
The long answer: Because gays, historically, have been presented in films in often one of either two ways: as harmless camp stereotypes (a la drag queens) or as tragic figures. The gay community got sick of seeing themselves "misrepresented" by Hollywood and demanded to see movies in which A) they didn't have to dress in women's clothing or B) they didn't have to die in order for audiences to accept images of them in entertainment.
There has been a long history of movies in which the gay characters died. The gay community has (sometimes correctly, mostly erroneously) gleaned the message that gays should be punished for loving others of the same sex. Philadelphia, while a very well-meaning movie, was ultimately a major letdown to the gay community because A) it desexualzed its lead character (Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas share one very quick "hello" kiss) and B) Hanks died of AIDS at the end of it. A lot of people cried, "Why did the gay man have to die in order for the straight man to learn the value of tolerance?"
SPOILER ALERT! Skip the next paragraph if you don't want to know how Brokeback ends. Seriously.
Brokeback, similarly, attempts to teach audiences a lesson, not so much in tolerance, but really in acceptance. Sadly, one of the major characters dies at the end (if you believe the "vision" that Ennis has while on the phone with Jack's wife, Jack was killed as a result of a fag bashing), which has gotten a lot of gay folks in an uproar over what they deem to be yet another film in which the gay characters are "punished" for being gay.
I can see why some might react negatively to Brokeback b/cuz of this, but in this instance, I think they are missing a very important point. If the movie had been set in present times, I would have had the same problem. But b/cuz it begins in the 1960s, and b/cuz it is set in Montana, I think the storyline is incredibly appropriate and very powerful.
I think that one of the biggest problems with the way that the gay community is approaching this movie is that they think it was made for us. But Brokeback was not made for the gay community alone. It was made for everyone to enjoy, not exclusively one audience market. Annie Proulx (who wrote the short story upon which the movie is based) wanted to tell a great American love story that -- like most of the greatest love stories in American history (Romeo and Juliet, Casablanca, Titanic) -- ends tragically for at least one of its characters. The film's screenwriters (the husband-wife team of Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossanna) read the story and were floored by its emotional weight, and saw an opportunity to share the beautiful story with the world as a way to convey just how similar gay relationships are to heterosexual ones.
As I've said in other posts, the gay community has gotten so used to seeing ourselves in movies (Philadelphia, In and Out) and on TV (Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and most recently the new show Crumbs) that we've become rather spoiled. We don't want to see any more tragic depictions of our lives. We want to see healthy, self-actualized characters who are living happy lives. The problem with that attitude, however, is that not every gay person lives a happy, self-actualized life. And what's wrong with telling the stories of those people to make a point?
Indeed, isn't a movie like Brokeback serving the greater good by A) showing gay people what could happen if they stay in the closet and B) showing straight people how stupid they've been to deny gay people the right to love? That's what I think at least.
In my opinion, many of the film's gay detractors seem to be suffering from a self-imposed victim complex in which to present any image of a gay person who is not a well-adjusted, openly gay individual is viewed as an affront to the entire gay community. Is it not OK for anyone to tell stories of gay characters that (gasp!) don't live idyllic lives of self-actualized bliss and perfection? Have we forced ourselves so deep into the gay ghetto of victimization that we can't see past our own paranoia? If we follow the notion that Ang Lee (or, for that matter, Annie Proulx, who wrote the brilliant short story upon which the movie is based) represents an affront to gay people for Brokeback Mountain, well, then, hell, Steven Spielburg must be one helluva racist for making The Color Purple or even Schindler’s List.
Like all good love stories, Brokeback reminds us that love is nothing if not fragile and rare. It shows how societal contraints can often come between love – no matter how strong and noble. Lastly, it reminds us that we are not alone in wanting to love and be loved. Personally, I applaud that.
I don’t want to be spoonfed trite happy endings that do not reflect the realities of the real world. I want the movies that I pay good money to see to reflect real life, not some kind of deluded vision of a Gaytopia that may never exist outside of our idealistic fantasies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I think that to condemn Brokeback Mountain for having the courage to depict such a true-to-life scenario is to perpetuate a sick cycle of self-righteous victimization that is far more destructive to the gay community than a well-intended film about gay cowboys in love.
Bookmarks