Sometimes a Movie is Just a Movie

There is a little back and forth happening in the blogosphere over the imminent wide release of Brokeback Mountain.

Mickey Kaus claimed to have no interest because he's a heterosexual (scroll down), Andrew Sullivan archly implied . . . something about this, and Ace of Spades took issue.

Here's the trick - it's only a movie.

I tend to agree with Ace on this issue. That so much weight and importance is being given to Brokeback Mountain says more about us than it does about any potential audience. It seems to me that many reviews imply this movie is just too much for red-state audiences, and the homophobes will be against it. No doubt that will play a role. However, if Brokeback isn't massively successful during a wide release, it really says very little about America, about us, or about homosexuality in general.

If I'm being honest, I have to admit had this film been about lesbian cowgirls, I wouldn't be caught dead in flannel within five miles of a theater. Not because I have anything personal against lesbians, but because I don't find lesbian anything particularly interesting. I certainly don't find it interesting to the tune of $10 for two hours of sheer boredom. Those people at the bar who groaned during the Queer as Folk nights whenever the lesbian couple appeared on screen? Count me among them.

I have fairly simple criteria when deciding to attend a movie:

1. Does it interest me?
2. Will I find it funny and/or entertaining in some way
3. Is it chock full of special effects or inspired cinematography I can ogle for the duration? (I'm a sucker for eye-candy).

That really is about it. Lesbian cowgirls with difficult, angst-filled lives spiced up by the occasional graphic make-out session or sex scene? Zzzzzz. I'm sorry. I'd be bored out of my male-loving skull.

It seems we should, at the very least, extend that courtesy to others. Some heterosexuals simply won't want to see this film because they don't find the underlying material interesting or worth the money. There is nothing in it for them. Sure, perhaps they should see it in order to be "enlightened" in a fashion, but mainstream audiences don't shell out cash to be enlightened - they attend movies to be entertained.

All this sturm and drang from reviewers about what this movie means or doesn't mean to America at large. Nonsense. The only important bits are that it was made, that it was made well, that a lot of people will be genuinely moved, and that some of us will see a part of ourselves on screen in a way that has never been depicted before in mainstream American cinema.

What other people think is immaterial. If you are entertained and you are moved, then the film-maker has served his purpose. If some people see gay people in a different, better light, that's simply a bonus.

It is not the central purpose of this film, and critics and gay people alike who would make it so are missing the point entirely.

Comments

[KipEsquire]

"...no interest because he's a heterosexual ..."

So I should have no interest in "The Color Purple" because I'm not a poor black girl in the Old South who was a victim of incest and domestic violence?

Or "The Lion King" because I'm not an animal living on the African Plains?

Or "Star Wars" movies because my mitichlorian count is too low?

Gimme a break.

[Robbie]

Actually, it would probably behoove you to read Mickey's and Ace's points. They make genuinely good ones that are not homophobic.

[Emerson]

Amen, Robbie! After seeing Brokeback, I thought back to the countless reviews I read over the past, hm, it feels like at least a year, all of which had virtually nothing to say about the movie on its own terms, but only about what an Important Film for Our Society Today this is.

While I believe in such a thing as "important" art, Brokeback ain't it. I happen to think it's great art, but of the kind that's only going to be "important" to the individual people who see it, and only then on a very individual basis. I can't even begin to describe (without honestly boring you) what kind of experience I had watching this movie, as an HIV positive man in an endlessly fulfilling life partnership with a brilliant HIV negative man that I fear will someday suffer my loss.

That said, this movie isn't going to change the world. All of us gays and many, many women, and many more open-minded, culturally curious people would like to designate this movie as "important" because to do so justifies our fascination, at least some of which must truthfully be attributed to the beauty of its stars. Can anyone claim that Ledger and Gyllenhall would have been cast if they didn't look so good naked? Pardon me for a moment while I contemplate that . . .

And while I'm here, I want to point out that Ang Lee is arguable a very conservative filmmaker, from an aesthetic and literary standpoint if not from a political one, though his preoccupation with protecting families from destabilizing cultural forces (an especially strong theme in The Ice Storm) certainly suggests he may be. Formally speaking, this film is inoffensive to such a degree as to border on mundane. I wonder what people would say if the projectionist accidentally unreeled some 50-year-old thing from Buñuel at the multiplex. It's fun to imagine the various responses of critics, audiences, and cable news jackasses.

[Tony]

I think the "important" thing about the film is the attention that it's getting. This is something that my sister in Tennessee will actually think about seeing or ask me about. That doesn't happen with the typical gay movies that are obsessed with sex, bars, drugs, AIDS - things that, quite frankly, have nothing to do with my own gay life.
The reason I find it important is that it's the first film that I feel like addresses the true emotions of the journey rather than the distractions of all that crap that most gay films and media focus on. Some of us just want to have simple lives with someone we love. A lot of straight people can relate to that theme in a way they haven't been able to relate to other gay portrayals. Not that relating to straight people is the end all/be all... it's just a nice bonus.

[Robbie]

Well, you've hit upon it, I think, in that the movie is about us, how we feel, what our lives and loves are actually like, rather than the stereotypes. That this film was made is important to us, because of what we hold inside of us. I rambled on about this component of it here.

What bothers me is that some people are never happy unless they're finding validation or political value in everything. It's not enough that this movie was made, but it must be used as a weapon in the endless culture wars. "Yeah, we're gonna stick it to the fundies, yo!" Why can't a movie about gay men just be a movie about gay men? (Yeah, yeah, it's really a universal love story - I don't go to see universal love stories. I'm attending this because it's about gay men).

Who care what straight men think of the film? All that matters is what I think about it, how it relates to my life, and whether or not I take away something from it. Not everything needs to be a running commentary on Red vs Blue America at large, so it really, really irks me to see critics and others trying to make it into that.

I think it cheapens the film and what it's about.

[Robbie]

I agree, Tony. It's important that the film was made. That's it's gotten a lot of attention is brilliant. Awards? Double bonus. The politics being flung in some of the reviews is terrifically aggravating, though.

The reason I find it important is that it's the first film that I feel like addresses the true emotions of the journey rather than the distractions of all that crap that most gay films and media focus on.

Absolutely. That's what I talk about in the link above in my reply to Emerson.

[Tony]

Thanks Robbie, I read more of your thoughts. Like them.
I'm brand new to blogging and posting, so not sure if this is off-topic.
There was one thing about Brokeback that I found a little odd or at least to me, unrealistic. The first sex scene in the tent. Am I just a prude or does the transition from heretofore hetero-inclined cowboy to late night immediate butt-fucking seem a little much? I mean, I KNEW I was gay and I still had to ease into the anal sex thing. My first experience was a late night blow job from a previously assumed straight friend. But the first time I did try to get screwed... it hurt like hell. If I had been Jack Twist in that scene... and yes, I do wish that I was... they'd have heard me screaming all the way in Cheyenne. Of course, it could be that Jack has been screwed before... which is certainly possible with that character. But Ennis going straight for the crack, seems a little odd to me. Maybe I'm more of a "toe in the water" type though.
The other thing is Ennis turning his wife around for what one assumes is either doggy style or anal sex. Just cause a guy might be gay does that make a woman's ass more inviting than her vagina? I don't think so. As a writer, I thought they might do something like have her say, "don't be rough this time" but the flipping over. Didn't sit right with me.
I still like the movie, though I agree it's more about your experiences going in than the quality of the film in this case. But Ledger should get the Oscar no doubt. He created a real character. Hoffman and Strathairn did fine in their roles of Capote and Murrow, but Ledger didn't have the luxury of history, he made Ennis from scratch.

[Robbie]

I see what you're saying. On the one hand, their hooking up seems rather sudden. On the other, they were out there for awhile, all alone, allowing the erotic tension to build until something breaks between them and it is suddenly, violently released.

I'm with you on the immediate penetration thing, though. Just ram it right in? I can think of nothing more painful. There are porno stars out there who won't do that sort of thing. I think Proulx wrote that scene and used the immediate penetration as a literary device, a descriptional nod towards Ennis' simple, straight-forward manner.

In the story, from what I remember, I think it's implied Jack has been with other men before Ennis. He's certainly with other men when he's down in Texas. So, perhaps he has experience in these things. Still. Ow.

Even though Ennis takes his wife from behind, he still might have had vaginal intercourse with her from that position. (I haven't seen the movie, and I dimly remember the story). I think it's meant to portray that he's thinking about being with Jack, fantasizing with another body, remembering what sex with Jack was like. Just another way to show that his marriage isn't "all there," and that his love and longing for Jack permeates all aspects of his life, even the most private, intimate parts.

[Stephen]

The ONLY social aspect of this film is that it shows gay life in a postive light, without stereotypes. If for NO other reason, this film is a first. FWIW, I do miss the "Castro" look of the '70s, which this film brought home. There's something about MEN (cf., buffs) that is visually exciting. When will the buzz cuts, tattoos, and hairlessness EVER end?

[kipp]

It's just us fags that are saying "just ram it in?...no lube?" - the cringe in the 99% gay San Francisco opening night crowd during that scene was audible. But nobody else notices those little practicalities.

I think Proulx wrote the scene that way not for simplicity but instead for innocence: The sudden, instantaneous coupling didn't have any obviously gay precursors. There wasn't time for the characters to reflect on an escalating series of obviously homosexual behaviors before the climactic act. To "see where it was going" and consent to going gay. It allows Ennis and Jack to still retain some credibility as straight characters and hence create the enigma of their love. I doubt anyone in the theatre thinks Ennis and Jack are still at all straight after the sex scene - but that is the difference between a 2 sentence description in the short story and the 1000 words (and then some) the image of Heathe and Jake rutting in the tent convey.

I liked the movie - but that was inevitably helped by a nostalgic connection to my past. If it were lesbians, I admit I probly wouldn't have seen it either. So the straight guys deserve a break... except the ones like Ace who can't be content for people to assume they are just uninterested. He keeps stressing that he's actually "innately, viscerally averse" to seeing male intimacy (like all straight men, he claims). Now, observing lesbian sex confuses me at most and bores me at least - there's no genetically programmed visceral aversion. Claims like that are overcompensation - and that's always fun to ridicule...

[Malcontent]

My boyfriends over at The Pen15 Club have wonderful advice to any straight men contemplating seeing BM, er, Brokeback Mountain. Step one: Get the fuck over yourself already.