Posted on 12/23/2005 5:39:51 PM PST by presidio9
When word got around among gay people that Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, hunky Hollywood hotties du jour, were set to play ranch hands who fall in love in the idyllic mountains of Wyoming, there was a certain giddiness: Tight Levi's galore! The homoerotic Abercrombie & Fitch catalog writ large! A mainstream, romantic, holigay cowboy movie!
Then a herd mentality started to sink in, like a gay church praying at the altar of "Brokeback Mountain." There's a countdown on Gay.com ("It's finally here!"), E-vites are landing in in-boxes ("Let's watch it together!"), and blogs are keeping tabs on the film's awards, including seven Golden Globe nominations — the most of any film this year. The message is: If you're a self-respecting homosexual, you had better see this film, pronto.
Yet what's most surprising about "Brokeback" is that it's not a gay film. Not in the way gay films, especially those about gay men, usually are.
This is not a film about gay men and AIDS, à la "Philadelphia," which won Tom Hanks an Oscar, or "Love! Valour! Compassion!," the film version of the Terrence McNally play. It's neither comedic nor campy, nothing like "In & Out" or "The Birdcage." It's no "Kiss Me, Guido" or "Trick" or "The Broken Hearts Club," all set in big cities, with stereotypical gay characters — a thespian with the perfectly decorated Greenwich Village apartment, a West Hollywood muscle queen hooked on drugs — trapped in flamboyantly worn-out narratives.
Love repressed
Based on a spare short story by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Annie Proulx and directed by Taiwanese American Ang Lee ("Sense and Sensibility," "The Ice Storm," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"), it tells the story of Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar (Ledger), two vagabonds whose lifelong affair begins in Brokeback Mountain on a chilly night in 1963.
They part ways, marry women who don't know their secret and have children, only to reunite four years later with a deep, fiery, longing kiss that is arguably the most passionate man-on-man kiss to have been put on screen.
"Theirs is a story of a love that was repressed," Lee, who is married and has two kids, says in an interview. "That's really what drew me to the story."
Year after year, spanning two decades, Jack and Ennis reunite at Brokeback Mountain, frustrated, scared, still in love — and giving new meaning to "goin' fishin'," the excuse they tell their wives.
There is one sex scene in the movie, which Lee describes as "animalistic," "spontaneous" and "aggressive"; it stands in stark contrast to the kissing scene, which is meant to be "sexy." If you don't buy that kiss, Lee adds, then you won't buy the love affair.
"It's not about sex"
The film's old-fashioned romanticism wasn't what some early viewers had expected. "It doesn't fit into the current gay culture as we know it. It's not about sex; I was actually surprised that there wasn't that much sex in it," says Jonathan Rosales, 21, a recent graduate of the University of Southern California who saw "Brokeback" in Los Angeles.
Joseph Wiedman, a 31-year-old lawyer who saw the film in San Francisco, adds, "The big thing is: The movie is really well done and really accessible, for gays and straights. It's not preachy, as one of my friends pointed out, and not at all political. It's very personal."
"Brokeback" pushes the boundaries on two fronts: It's a Hollywood romance, but with gay men; it's a gay film, but with broader, more universal themes.
"They can call it whatever they want to call it; just don't call it a 'gay cowboy love story.' That's upsetting to me," says Paul Pecoriano, 35, an actor and waiter in Manhattan.
"It's a love story, period," says Pecoriano.
And a Merry Christmas to you and yours, lj!
I do not think supporting the homosexual agenda which entails the homosexualization of society by any method including the methods you employ has ever been acceptable. Any evidence to the contrary would be anectdotal and only be supplied by you or other homosexual agenda supporters -- your glowing reviews and critical acclaim for this homosexual adultery movie are as bizarre as the movie itself.
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Since Nicky's only made a handful of comments since his signup date of 2001, and much in support of the "gay" agenda, his protests fall flat.
Merry Christmas to all!
You know, I had actually never read that mission statement, and I'm glad you sent it me. In my early days of reading posts on the site I had seen more divergent opinion than that statement would indicate. (Even now, there are definitely those on freerepublic who see evolution as science and intelligent design as bunk, and state their case passionately.) Merry Christmas, and thanks for giving me the bigger picture.
Nick, until this post many of us thought you were being honest about your story of being a right-leaning person living among Hollywood liberals. When you start spouting cheap lie gags like the idea that "Creationism is part of the Conservative platform" you give yourself away. Who writes your material? John Stewart? Why don't you point out how much we hate black people too?
You misunderstood--I mean the opposite--that creationism obviously isn't part of the conservative platform because there's dialogue about that on this site. What I was commenting on was the absence of dialogue on other topics. Reading the mission statement explained that to me. I have been illumined. And as for being a right leaning person among Hollywood liberals, you should see the abuse I've been getting my saying that maybe Stanley Williams is a smidgeon less than a hero and that death may actually be a good place for him to apply his talents.
There is even dialogue on homosexuality. What people have rejected here is your mocking blindness to the liberal agenda that seeks to recast homosexuality as normal in our society. It definitely exists. Case and point: In every public school that I am aware of, including my own, we were taught that homosexuals comprised 10% of the population.
I have to go now. I am off to my family Christmas dinner, where there will be two homosexuals (whom I love very much) present.
That quote is a complete falsehood (not you for posting it, but whoever wrote it and what it states).
People are said to be "running out of the theatre" and most of them heterosexual males who leave when the first sexual incident occurs between the two homosexual males on screen. Heterosexual males attending the film because the females they're with asked them to see the film.
Running out of the theatre and mostly in abject disgust.
And, given that there's a very, very limited type of person IN the audience for this film -- homosexuals and some who "sympathize" with homosexuality for whatever reason -- it's already a huge statement about the audience (and those running out in disgust are those who are said to have attended because they were told or asked to by a female they escorted who wanted to see the film). Look at the numbers: low and getting lower and it's because the film had one audience and one only and it was a "pre-affirmed," "pre-enthused" audience of (almost completely) homosexuals and/or those otherwise influenced about homosexuality with some sympathetic reason to see the film.
Which means a very small minority of the population.
For anyone not in those groups, they're "running out of the theatres in disgust" from what I've heard and read in a few objective news sites.
I agree with the comparison with NAMBLA terminology, also. You have that right.
And, the entertainment media is largely populated by homosexual males and those who associate with them in some skewed sense of "trendiness." So, little surprise that the entertainment media is going foolish-apey over this film...it's their sugar water.
Ang Lee is a remarkable filmmaker, and any movie by him would be well made, regardless of the theme or content. Personally I think both sides of the argument have overplayed themselves--it's not going to be the end to traditional values and it is not the great white hope for the homosexual agenda. It is just a well made movie.
Well said.
I'd call it polarizing.
-from a morally devoid technical perspective as you proffer; yes -even pornography can technically be 'well made'...
Regardless -I doubt seriously anyone is against well made movies as such SO it would appear you offer nothing germane to the article nor to the debate regarding the substance of this disgusting movie.
I give you a passive homosexual activism rating of 3.6.
I think you misunderstood my point, or took it to be a response to something you said. My comment wasn't directed to you. I was talking about the film as a work of art, not as a purveyor of any agenda, a comment that was made by somebody else, Nick5 I think.
How about if I agree with you instead?
aargghhh...where's my image....
Wow. Really?
Yes. Powerful film.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.