Why are gay people against brokeback mountain?

[Marc]

I saw a video of Ang Lee talking to the press after his award and he was asked if he 's been getting any hate mail from the movie, and he said he got a lot of it, from BOTH sides, left and right.

That doesnt make sense to me why pro-gay people would be sending him hate mail.
As far as I can see he did us a big favor with that movie.

[Lee]

I havent even seen it yet and, in all honesty, dont feel a need to see it until it hits showtime or hbo.

I am however looking forward to seeing RENT on the 21st of this month when it comes out on DVD along with Doom which i beleive comes out next Tuesday or Wednesday

Regards,

Lee

[longboardjim]

i'm with lee i haven't seen it either , but had no desire to see it , of course wouldn't you know the one movie i went to see which i thought would be good focused less on the artistic/graceful beauty of geisha and made her appear as high class prostitute only.

sincerely ~ ..."who wants to bid on my sweet bun?"... :goof:

[basschick]

http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...ight=brokeback

[Marc]

I didnt care to see it either, but then I just went and saw it. It really rips your heart out. It did for me anyways

[basschick]

i guess for me, that's the problem. i don't want my heart ripped out. there are other kinds of impact a movie can have besides tragedy - but unfortunately tragedy is the easiest to acheive.

[Marc]

i guess for me, that's the problem. i don't want my heart ripped out. there are other kinds of impact a movie can have besides tragedy - but unfortunately tragedy is the easiest to acheive.

well, its a movie.
if you made a movie where everyone was happy and wonderful then people would be bored and leave in 2 seconds.
But you see what happens in that movie and you feel compassion for those 2 guys, which I think is really good for people who may not have been pro-gay to walk out of there being more sympathetic towards gay people.

[XXXWriterDude]

i guess for me, that's the problem. i don't want my heart ripped out. there are other kinds of impact a movie can have besides tragedy - but unfortunately tragedy is the easiest to acheive.

I think that's a pretty reductive way of looking at it, Patti. Tragedy is not the "easiest to achieve." What's wrong with stories that reveal human pain? Personally, I love a good ol' tragedy. I also love sad songs. They remind me that I'm not alone, that I'm not the only person to have ever felt pain. And, in the end, that makes me feel alive.

I'm hearing that Brokeback is having that affect on a lot of people, actually. They are talking about how the film has inspired them in a lot of ways, the most important one being that love is something that we should be more careful with and treat with more respect than we do.

[basschick]

it's my opinion, ken. i gotta be me. what feels right for one person doesn't always feel right to another. no one needs to agree with me but for myself, i feel what i feel.

I think that's a pretty reductive way of looking at it, Patti. Tragedy is not the "easiest to achieve." What's wrong with stories that reveal human pain? Personally, I love a good ol' tragedy. I also love sad songs. They remind me that I'm not alone, that I'm not the only person to have ever felt pain. And, in the end, that makes me feel alive.

I'm hearing that Brokeback is having that affect on a lot of people, actually. They are talking about how the film has inspired them in a lot of ways, the most important one being that love is something that we should be more careful with and treat with more respect than we do.

[XXXWriterDude]

I saw a video of Ang Lee talking to the press after his award and he was asked if he 's been getting any hate mail from the movie, and he said he got a lot of it, from BOTH sides, left and right.

That doesnt make sense to me. Wy pro-gay people would be sending him hate mail? As far as I can see he did us a big favor with that movie.

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.

[Squirt]

I took my son to see brokeback with me the other day.

Brokeback is obviously a crossover film meant to help a straight male audience relate more to a Gay "relationship".

I think this film will help a lot of guys that are in the closet and in a straight relationship rethink what they are doing.

It's a shame that some in the Gay community think that a Gay film has to fit their stereotype, or speak directly to them, to be of some use.

I just saw Iron Ladies today on showtime and WOW is brokeback a big step forward or what? Do you think that brokeback will give straight men the idea that gay men have anal sex without lube? Do you think more straight women will be suspicious of their husbands going out "camping" or "fishing" with their mates?

[tombarr]

Ken

I have read many of your posts and I must confess, that while I do not always concur with what you say, I very much am impressed with your writing ability, your thinking clarity, and your ability to concisely and completely make your points, express your opinion, and get the message across in a very logical, readable way. I think AVN is lucky to have you as a writer.

And that's my fluff piece for the day.

Tom

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.

[Huskyhunks]

It's a movie, not a movement. I always approach them as entertainment. I have not seen it yet but I will when it's out on dvd.

[XXXWriterDude]

it's my opinion, ken. i gotta be me. what feels right for one person doesn't always feel right to another. no one needs to agree with me but for myself, i feel what i feel.

Can't argue with that. More power to ya!

[XXXWriterDude]

It's a movie, not a movement. I always approach them as entertainment. I have not seen it yet but I will when it's out on dvd.

Well, that's not quite true and, again, it's a pretty reductive way of looking at cinema and/or the arts. And just a little insulting to the artists and filmmakers who create movies, etc. A lot of us who are filmmakers (I am a screenwriter and aspiring director, though not yet produced apart from porn) do intend for the movies we write/produce to be informed by some kind of message. Participant Productions, for instance, will ONLY make movies that they find to be socially relevant and that make some kind of a statement about politics and/or the human condition. (I do script coverage for them on a regular basis.) Syriana was one of their movies. Their implicit mission in making it was to not just tell a story, but wake people up. So, in truth, it's actually a LOT more than just a movie. You may not see it as such, but well, I suppose that's your perogative.

A lot of movies are just entertainment, sure, but a lot of them, like Brokeback, carry with them the potential to teach lessons and inform people about important issues. By that token, a movie can, in fact, create a movement.