Brokeback Mountain: Reality vs Pop Culture

I finally got around to seeing Brokeback Mountain. Best Buy had a promotion where when you purchase the DVD you receive the book Brokeback Mountain: Story to Screenplay, FREE (a $16 value, no less). YES! I'd finally get the book version I've been wanting! The first Best Buy had completely sold out of the promo item so I initially thought I'd be resigned to buying it used on DVD at Hollywood Video. As chance would have it the other Best Buy near my house actually had plenty in stock, so I did end up buying the DVD new as well as receiving the book.

Having had time to read/listen to other people's reactions, reviews, etc. about the film long before I actually saw it, I've noticed one constant: The majority of straight men that had the wherewithall to see the movie, seem to find it slow paced and "boring," while straight women seem to friggin' love it. I think it all boils down to the whole machismo vs "chick flick" thing. Just an interesting observation. I'm always fascinated by what does and doesn't appeal to people and why.

I liked the movie. I didn't necessarily think it lived up to the whole Oscar hype, but visually I thought it was a beautiful film and the majority of the acting was great. However the fact that Michelle Williams performance was nominated for an Oscar still baffles me. Personally, I thought Anne Hathaway had a more interesting character and delivered a better performance than Williams did. And I must say, Heath Ledger's performance did live up to the hype. I thought he was great and though I find Jake to be super-dreamy, Ledger's performance was more consistent and just better overall. I have a newfound respect for Ledger as an actor now.

I think one of the reasons I liked the film was because, to me, it was realistic in the sense that it was another one of those gay-themed movies that doesn't necessarily have a happy ending. As morbid as it sounds, I tend to have more respect for those movies as opposed to the ones that portray being gay as some kind of wacky misadventure complete with a soundtrack you can dance to. Don't get me wrong, those movies can be fun, but I can't take them seriously. That's not to say that being gay is some kind of neverending funeral march, but trust me, it's not as fabulously accepted as Hollywood or some of us would like to believe.


Which brings me to the topic that I've been discussing (read naysaying) with some of my friends and fans of the film since its release. Though I admit that having a mainstream film with mainstream actors playing the leads is a step in the right direction as far as bringing otherwise "taboo" issues into the mainstream in order to stimulate a dialogue among people, I don't necessarily feel like this movie was some magical beginning to a brave new world. Unlike most of the gay people whose reviews I've read and/or talked to, I don't see this movie as a landmark simply because it received positive acclaim and an Oscar nomination. That's all great of course, but I'm not deluded enough to think I'm going to be "bonding" with any of the people in the red state I live in, much less change the way they think anytime soon. It's just not realistic.

---

*POSSIBLE MOVIE SPOILER*
Another issue the movie stirred up was what is is to be a "man." Apparently the whole aspect of a gay man being portrayed as rugged as opposed to the whole over coiffed metrosexual schtick, is "mind bending" to some people. Personally I was much more interested in another topic the movie touched on: violence. Suffice to say I thought this particular topic helped round out the total package that is Brokeback Mountain. I think sometime people get too wrapped up in the ideals of homosexuality and can't or won't see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately violence is still a very real side-effect of homosexuality. I think Matthew Shepherd was an all too grim reminder of that.

---

And last but not least, I have to comment on the whole hubbub via The Advocate in regards to Gene Shalit's alleged "antigay review" of the film. Apparently they took offense with Shalit's perception that Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack was a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts." According to GLAAD: "The characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general." I'm sorry but that's just plain bullshit. It never ceases to piss me off when the gay "community" takes offense at anything that puts them in a bad, but not necessarily unrealistic light. That's not to say that Shalit is right...or wrong. It's simply his interpretation as a viewer. That's it. If you don't like his conclusion, fine, but don't pull "defamation of character" outta your ass (no pun intended) just because you don't agree. That's just ridiculous. Like any film review it's all relative. Form your own opinion and see what movies interests you and avoid the films that don't. It really is just that simple.

[ Click the image to see Brokeback Mountain in 30 seconds ]