Even gay men mismatch denim

Brokeback Mountain is a great movie, but a pretty lousy monument. Yeah, there's never been anything like it, but more importantly, there will never be anything like it (save bareback-porn tributes and the unlikely direct rip-off). Like the romance it sets in the gorgeous middle of nowhere, it is inherently isolated -- were it not for the long, sustained shots of the Alberta countryside that double as a neon sign blinking "EPIC" at us viewers, it could play as the little, one-off, quirky (albeit tragic, no matter how you shoot it) love story that it is.

But setting takes up so much of the story, as it should -- it's an indispensable device. This is Hollywood we're talking about, and it seems that the safest (perhaps, at this point, only) way to tell a story, in which a gay romance informs everything, is to divorce it from present gay culture. Brokeback Mountain strips away all external forces from homosexuality to meditate on a simple tale of forbidden love. All, that is, except homophobia. Ennis (Heath Ledger), Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) and all of us cope with de facto homophobia. Some of us even feel that we have to be as closeted as these two characters. But even being closeted today provides more open options than back then -- Ennis and Jack don't have the luxury of being able to watch Brokeback Mountain on their SUV DVD player during one of their camping excursions.

Brokeback Mountain depicts a much simpler time, one in which men were men were men. I'm not sure if that will work for or against the movie's mainstream appeal. More importantly, I don't know how helpful it will be in helping nonbelievers understand that gays are people, too (since pop culture is the one school that's never out of session for the masses). I don't know if straight guys will be more or less threatened by watching passion rage between two masculine men. On one hand, subverting the masculine icon of the cowboy serves to untangle homophobia from its fuck buddy, femmephobia -- the lack of limp wrists and lisps surely will confront some people with a representation of homosexuality different than the one they are comfortably uncomfortable with. On the other, Ennis and Jack's wrestling that easily glides into foreplay might assault the senses of the straight guy who takes pride in his sissy jokes -- depending on to what degree non-sexual, all-male physical contact hits home, Mr. Straight Man might be outraged that the concept of the rough-and-tumble buddy is being turned in its head. There's nothing ignorance hates to do more than having to rethink.

What I can say for sure is that Jake Gyllenhaal is a dream bottom and that two impossibly beautiful, not-too-young men rolling around together is a celebration of masculinity that gays fetishize. Here are two amateur straight guys humping hard while effortlessly maintaining swagger and stoicism ("fishing" effectively becomes a euphemism for fucking, as that's what Ennis and Jack tell their wives they're doing during their weekend romps, and really, how straight-boy can you get?). The fully clothed sex scene is hotter than any fully nude mainstream sex that I've seen, and it's more convincing than a lot of porn. There's a palpable urgency to the sex that makes getting off the clear objective. That's the expression of love. Boys will be boys.

While I embrace the movie's depiction of gay sex (clearly!), that aspect of the film is mostly cartoon fantasy -- even if it confronts viewers with the notion that not all fags are sissies, Ennis and Jack don't exactly have the option of exhibiting femininity, anyway. They live in a galaxy far, far away. It's as impossible to get to as it is to be in -- the story is set up so that its lovers cannot be together, so that it's virtually impossible for things to end well, so that the tragedy of their situation is a binding tie. This is, simply, melodrama that's totally complicated by the brilliant directing and acting all around. I was able to tuck away whatever contempt I'd have for watching a story played so many times before (this time with two penises!) because these characters are inhabited down to the mannerism, silences and grunts and all.

Brokeback Mountain's contradiction is that it presents its well-worn territory off the beaten path. It takes universal concepts of impossible love and traditional masculinity, and it turns them inside out. It's not the tool for understanding today's gays that would make it THE GAY MOVIE for the mainstream, but I can't even really imagine what that movie would look like and how unsubtle it would have to be. Despite the broad strokes at its base, Brokeback Mountain is graceful and respectful -- it presents relationship of Ennis and Jack for the unique phenomenon that it is. It is, at the very least, an invaluable entry in the dilapidated hall of queer cinema. This is not a monument, but that's to its credit -- it's instead a great place to sit and ponder.

Comments

[Ambre]

"There's nothing ignorance hates to do more than having to rethink."

Well put, Rich.

[Tiger Lilly]

Really powerful post. I am definitely going to see it now!

[jeremy]

quick! someone get this kid a degree in semiology! nice analysis, rich!! why are the halls of queer cinema dilapidated? cuz of all those 'queer film' fests movies? i think the real deal queer filmmakers do a pretty good job and the canon of gay cinema is pretty tight. did you like 'far from heaven'?

[Rich]

Far From Heaven is as wonderful and one-off as Brokeback Mountain. I'm not disputing the canon (however miniscule it is), but I think queer cinema has a long way to go. For every Brokeback or Heaven, there are a couple dozen Tricks.

Obviously, there are shitty movies everywhere, but my distaste comes mainly from what I've previously referred to as gay-for-gay's-sake cinema -- basically, exploitation films of the worst sort. A lot of what I see (or really, try to avoid) are too smug and content to coast on their sexuality to even be trashy fun. Where's my homo Foxy Brown, for Christ's sake?

[Bueller]

Best review I've seen by far. Right on point. Thanks....

[Talix18]

Wait - I thought we were supposed to mismatch denim. I swear that's what Carson said.

[Liza]

that was super insightful - as a f.h. myself, I have come to appreciate the balanc of super queer and not so queer in the boys of my life. I thought for the longest time that my one queer was straight as straight! That's probably because I am used to the limp wrist lispers - but the former is a group that certainly needs more exploration. No that's not a title suggestion for a skinny flick - just a thought
so anyways, great re cap

[Charlene]

I'm dying to see this movie. It isn't playing in Toronto yet! Come on, people, Toronto's super gay-positive! The first legal gay marriage in North America happened here. Stupid studio.

[is]

I am actualy looking forward to seeing this movie.

On another note...Will you be bloging the Project Runway? I wish you would!!!!

[Steven]

Hmmm. I feel like I am the only gay man who is not all aglow about Brokeback Mountain.

I suppose it's because there are already plenty of gay flix out there with a similar theme -- forbidden love unrewarded (Maurice, Torch Song Trilogy, Last Exit to Brooklyn). So what makes this newer film any more special? The so-called cute guys? The sweeping vistas? I suspect there would be no hype if we were talking about John Goodman pining away for Tom Arnold across the prairiescape.

Yes, I realize that a film of this nature being shown in the everyday multiplex is somewhat remarkable. But all this Oscar talk is a bit puzzling. Are we handing out trophys to every straight male actor pretending to enjoy gay sex? If so, Sean Cody (et al) are due a statuette or two.

Don't get me wrong -- I'll go see it. It looks somewhat promising. But a milestone? I don't know...

[girlyQ]

I was hoping you would comment on this movie, which saw this weekend and found incredibly moving. Your comments about the indispensability of its mise-en-scene and its divorce from present gay culture struck me, because I had a different reaction.

To me, the Brokeback Mountain is groundbreaking and, ultimately, most innovative for mainstream cinema precisely *because* it is a gay love story that didn’t need to be set in gay culture. Perhaps the message is that EVERY culture is gay culture, no matter how sublimated.

[Rich]

Definitely -- love is a force of nature and all that. But I do feel like there's more to homophobia than hating men who fuck men, y'know? The culture of hate responds to a culture itself.

I hope Brokeback Mountain proves to be groundbreaking in its extremely quiet way. But I won't be surprised if other films don't have the courage to follow suit.

[a.]

I will see this movie because I thing Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are really strong actors and because there's a lot of Oscar buzz. I'm not sure I'll be able to catch it in the theatres though.

[is]

OOPS!!! Didn't mean to use BLOG as a VERB :)

[Rich]

Haha, I've come to accept that (plus, because so much of what I do here synthesizes pictures and sounds with words, I don't know if there's a word for it BESIDES blogging).

As for PR...erm, check here tomorrow for what I dug up.

[ChiliGurl]

I'm loving the reviews! I do have to say, however, that it will be interesting to see if my very conservative city will even show this film. Oh, and am I the only one who thinks Win kinda looks like Gizmo?

[Molly]

Straight female here- saw the trailer for Brokeback while sitting through the 2 hours of scripted CNN that was Syriana. (Blah. But George still looks sexy bearded and tubby.)

I was completely turned on just by the trailer. I have to commend Jake and Heath without having even seen the movie yet for accomplishing something that is seemingly impossible: I forgot I was watching two men. The passion--again, just in the TRAILER-- is so palpable and thick that you immediately become wrapped up in it and forget whether the two lovers have penises, vaginas, doohickeys or adnoids. It doesn't matter its just PASSION.

Anyway, I love your site Rich.

[Chris]

Rich-

A public radio program called "Weekend America" did a great little story this past weekend on how more westerns than we were aware of have a homoerotic undercurrent:

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/publicradioweekend/2005/12/10/10_prw_02?start=27:56.0&end=38:53.0

[vivilove]

Charlene,
I'm also in Toronto and CANNOT WAIT to see Heath and Jake make sweet sweet man love on screen. It opens for wide release on Dec 23rd. Brokeback was at the film festival in September, but tickets were impossible to get....

[What]

I don't know what to expect, but I will see the movie. I do hope that the movie does not suggest to the masses and young impressionable kids that it is OK to be gay. When television and movies get a hold of things and commercialize, it becomes acceptable. Is it acceptable to present women as half-naked hos who let men call them and do anything to them in videos? NO. Is it acceptable to be a baby momma and think it is cute? NO. Is it OK to disrespect your family name, or for children to be molested by grown men and woman? NO. Is it ok for a man to screw another man? NO. We live in dangerous time. I like your commentary, Rich. Very much. I just don't agree with homosexuality.

[juliet]

ummm...

[Rich]

What you're doing is calling me a chink while eating in my Chinese restaurant. It's disrespectful nonsense.

You understand that my commentary is wholly a product of not only this "dangerous" time but also my sexuality, right?

I'm leaving this comment up as a gold-star example of the twisted logic required to be homophobic in today's society (here, have a Coily). In doing so, I'm preaching to the converted, but that somehow makes more sense than leaving a message of intolerance on a homo's blog.

And, uh, something tells me that you won't be into Brokeback. Like, What?

[Steven]

What What? So let me get this...straight, er I mean, right. "What" comes to a blog site run by a gay man to say he is going to see a movie that is gay gay gay. BUT he doesn't like gays and blames them for the decline of western civilation. Along with half-naked hos and pedophiles...huh? What's with all the bizarre sexual preoccupations? There is more to being gay -- or "homosexual" than screwing another man.

(Last I checked, this movie was rated R so those impressionable young children you claim to speak for won't suffer the sight of two men herding sheep.)

You don't agree with homosexuality? What is there to agree about? Homosexuals have always existed, and always will. Don't like it? Ohdafuckwell. Some things are beyond your control.

Yes, we are living in dangerous times but you are completely misguided if you believe gays are responsible for that fact. There's plenty of war, disease, famine and poverty to worry about...yet you seem strangely distracted by gay cowboys. Get it right.

[SK]

Rich - I just recently discovered your blog and love it. Thanks so much for your review.

I saw Brokeback this past Sunday and absolutely loved it. I agree that it doesn't capture gay culture as it is today, but if it did that, it'd be a tremendous overload for the masses and certainly wouldnt garner the wide - and critical - support it's been given. I found that instead, it presented love simply as love, and in doing so portrayed homosexuality in its basic form, rather than in the baggage it has picked in modern day. I'd have to say that if the film is not a monument, then it must be a launching point. Its presentation of homosexuality and introduction of gay culture in refined, oscar-worthy, and intellectual film will initiate great strides in the reception of homosexuality in mainstream America -- or at least i hope so.

As for the comment that "What" so graciously left, I would just like to express my sincere disgust with the growing correlation between "danger" and homosexuality that is present in modern homophobia. How can you equate danger with men being attracted to men? It is an utterly weak, indirect, and completely ignorant concept that is used by homophobes as easily (and thankfully) destructible propaganda. If anything, the "dangerous times" of today stem from an incapability of so many people (such as "What") to be accepting, understanding, and tolerant. Perhaps if you open up your mind and eyes, you will see that our societal danger stems from our communication to children the value of man-on-man (no pun intended) violence and a need to establish our own moral superiority through ludicrous and ignorant means. So, to "What" I say: When a gay person harms you solely on the basis that he or she is gay, and nothing else, then get back to me.

[Charlene]

Vivilove,

I didn't even bother trying to get tickets to any of the movies during TO Film Festival. Thanks for the update about Brokeback.

To DianaAndrossi@yahoo.com (aka "What", aka Homophobic dolt, aka Scariest Person I've seen lately online),

How the hell is being gay dangerous to society? Is it because two gay men are unable to procreate and are thus unable to help out with this tragic underpopulation problem we have going? Oh, that's right, it's OVERpopulation, my bad.

Or perhaps it's because stylish gay men won't condone your acid-washed tapered jeans, mullets, and holiday-themed sweatshirt version of style? Well, you know what? Neither do straight people who aren't hicks.

You, Dianna Androssi, are everything that's wrong with the US and the reason that I'm so fricking glad to be Canadian. You and your nonsensical bigotry are the reason I'll be voting NDP in Canada's federal election on January 23rd and not Conservative (ugh, never Conservative). You have shown us all that Conservatism is just another name for arbitrary moralizing and I don't concede your right to dictate the way others are able to live their own personal lives.

[Andrew]

First, Rich, I would like to thank you for taking the time to ititiate what I find to be a profound discussion. You are the first person I have come across who has expressed some of my sentiments and misgivings about this film. I have yet to see the film, and I have no doubt I will in the near future. But there is something in me that has been having a passionate, viscreal reaction to the idea of this film since the moment I hard about it. Unfortunately, I have been so caught up in my thoughts that every time I try to express them, they become convoluted and confused. Let me just say that as a gay man who has not been able to walk down the street since the age of two without someone taking a moment to inform me that I am indeed a homosexual, I have trouble accepting a film like Brokeback Mountain as the pinnale of queer cinema, or in a larger sense, the ultimate testement of homosexuality. It simply is not. I also suspect that it is not meant to be. But that seems to be the buzz in the press and on the street. "The first mainstream gay movie." No. It is not mainstream. It is in limited release in cities with the largest gay populations. I doubt Mr. and Mrs. Miller in Des Moines, Iowa, are going to rush out and see Brokeback Mountain no matter how cute Mrs. Miller thinks that adorable Jake Gyllenhaal is. And if they do, what will the Millers learn about homosexuality? Gay men act just like straight men. They even marry women and have children. Gay love is forbidden...taboo. Gay love only ends in tragedy. And all I can think to say to this is, "Why?" Why must gay men aspire to be as "manly" as possible? Why must they hide any "feminine" traits? Why does their love have to be taboo? Why must someone die in the end? Why? This is where I get into trouble, because the questions keep coming and the tears start flowing. Where is the gay love story that isn't tragic? Where are the characters who do not define themselves by "masculine" and "feminine"? Where is the story that celebrates homosexuality? I have a feeling if that were the movie the Millers saw, poor Mr. and Mrs. Millers' heads would explode. Because let's face it, the Millers don't want that movie.

I know that I come across as very cynical and harsh. "But Andrew," you say, "can't you look at this as a small step in the right direction?" Yes, I can. But I am tired of small steps. I am too angry for small steps. I do not want to listen anymore to how cute Jake is and how stoic Heath is. Yes, they will garner critical and popular acclaim. Their careers will skyrocket all because they had the courage to play gay. Please. We know they are straight. They inform us of that in every interview. I have a feeling none of us would have seen this movie if any actor involved were actually gay, no matter how dreamy he looked. We need straight men like Jake and Heath to make it ok. But why? Why do gays need them for validation? Are their roles any more courageous than the lives of every openly gay person? No. Jake and Heath do it for two and a half hours on the screen. Gays do it every day. The run-of-the-mill, limp-wristed queen has done more for gay visibility than Jake could do bottoming for every A-List actor in Hollywood.

I have a feeling I will like this film, that I will appreciate it for what it is: a good story. But I do not think it will enlighten or expand my understanding of homosexuality. Nor will it do so for the Millers. The film is too safe in its depection of two gay men. Perhaps eventually we will have a film that is so courageous, so groundbreaking that it will forever obliterate the closet door. Until then, I will have to content myself with Jake takin' it like a schoolgirl. But until then, I will be angry. Angry at the ignorance, at the fear, at the intolerance. Angry at the homophobia. Like Pryor said to the Congress of Angels in Tony Kushner's mindblowing "Angels in America," "If God does come back, if he dares show his face again: sue the bastard. He walked out on us."

[Veggie Girl]

Thank you, Andrew, for posting that. I wonder how the movie would be received if two gay actors played the lead roles. Because they are straight there is a certain amount of distance and disbelief from their love scenes. It's not real, it's just acting. If they were gay, even though it is still acting, I can imagine audiences realizing that they are watching two gay men kiss, etc. and that might be too real for them, and I could see audiences being very turned off by that -- the idiotic, living in Victorian times audience that is the general public. Or maybe they wouldn't. You never know how people will respond to something until they are tested, but I don't think any big time movie company is willing to do that. For corporations, (who, of course, run everything and control what we call mainstream art and entertainment) when there is money and reputation involved, there is no testing of people's limits or conceptions or thoughts. Everything will be done in small steps if at all. It really strikes me that it's just about 2006 and THIS movie is the most progressive, mainstream movie about homosexual love there's been? Damn, that is just pathetic and sad. I know most people like their lives to be watered down and predictably safe, there is evidence of that everywhere you look, but WHY? Why don't people like to be challenged? Why don't we embrace uniqueness instead of criticize it? Is this a sociological or biological question? I don't get it. I think this subject has turned me into a misanthrop!

[Paddy]

Rich, excellent work. So effortlessly do you manage the leap from ANTM recap to original, insightful commentary (this review, and your take on Confessions on a Dance Floor). And then you do a Project Runway recap that totally makes my day.

Thank you

[Mr. Prince]

Personally, I can't wait to see the movie. Having read the short story online, I have high expectations of it.

[Lucycat]

Rich, as always great review. Also enjoyed the comments from the other posters, What's notwithstanding (though I was surprised she didn't break out the old bestiatlity comparison during her gays-are-evil spiel). I haven't set foot in a multiplex in almost 2 years, but this flick might be worth braving the overpriced popcorn and obnoxious patrons for.

[Kia]

Veggie Girl, I agree that many people seeing this movie will used the "it's just pretend" thing to quell their discomfort while watching. But I think the masses of people seeing this movie (queers and women) will be totally immersed in the story.

As per your review Rich, like you, I don't see this film as the monument that will break down the walls of homophobia. I don't even know if I ever thought of the movie as a weapon against such things. I feel like too much hype has been placed on the movie, but it is to be expected. You can't have a semi-mainstream film with two men in love and NOT have all the hoopla.

I found the movie to be quite honestly perfect. Not to say that it was without fault (Jake's moustache = DISGUST), but for me, the experience was more about seeing a story I loved brought to life rather than taking part in a "revolution" in cinema. In that vein, the filmmakers did an excellent job of visually capturing Annie Proulx's story - the irony of people who are trapped but live amongst such a vast, spawling setting. Like someone mentioned before, the story and subsequent movie were not made to enlighten the masses on gay culture. There would have to be a least some glitter and vouging. I think the producers were going for a subtler (more subtle?) approach, by simply showing one side of homoerotic (not necessarily gay) culture.

Another reason I don't see this film as the monument it has been made out to be: there aren't any gay people really involved. None of the actors are gay, maybe that one guy who wrote the screenplay is but I doubt it, and though Ang Lee makes great homo films, he's not gay either. You can't make a big gay statement without the input of some gays.

[Kia]

P.S. I just got wind of your site a few days ago and I am 93% sure that I love you.

[will]

this movie is not even being screen within 100 miles where i live. f%$*#g biblebelt

[UweB]

A brilliant, beautiful Movie. My favourite.
Hope it will win some of the 8 Oscars.

UweB from Berlin/Germany
Love.Light.SuperPOP!

any chance of some mp3 quotes?

[abend]

I've just been letting everything pass me by , but so it goes. I just don't have much to say these days. Pfft. I can't be bothered with anything. More or less nothing seems worth doing. I haven't gotten much done recently, but oh well.

[john]

Looking for some hot eye candy check out the latest up and coming fitness model chadwick!
http://www.chadwickonline.net