Big deal.
It's kind of boring. Nothing much happens. Just a lot of horseback riding and cold cowboys supposedly bonding over cans of beans and shuffling around staring off-screen. I didn't ever get emotionally engaged. I don't even know what it was about really.
Ang Lee has done much better. The Ice Storm is a masterwork by comparison. At least in that film he created some cool visual imagery to heighten and echo the themes of the piece. In Brokeback, there doesn't seem to be a theme. It's as if the film is trying so hard to not make a statement that - what a surprise! - it ends up not saying anything at all.
Seriously, I really can't say what the film is about. Maybe something like, "Love happens when it happens and woe to you if you fall in love with someone you can't be with." Which really isn't any kind of good movie theme - not being universal -- and also being so obvious that we hardly need a movie to get us all on board with it. (A good movie theme is something that can be argued.)
In the end, I didn't feel like Brokeback was advocating homosexuality as a lifestyle. The sodomy episodes at the center of the film were rough and somewhat icky. There was definitely no attempt to make people who suffer from same-sex attraction look like better human beings than people with normal sexual appetites. Ennis and Jack come off as being shiftless, self-serving and dull-witted, without any of the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" witty superficiality. I can see why some of the homosexual sub-cultures are grumbling against the film. It suggests that both the central characters are open to same-sex attraction because their father-figures were either absent or jackasses. You can't help feeling like homosexual men don't choose to be so, but become so because of abuse or neglect.
If there was anything propagandistic about the film, it was the way in which every straight male character in the film was a total jack-ass. But again, this just goes to the idea that same-sex attraction comes from people getting dropped on their head, not from God having made them that way.
From a cinematic standpoint, there is a problem in the film that results in, well, yawns on the part of the audience. The thirty or so folks in the screening tonight were mostly yawning from about forty minutes in. i was thinking about this in the car on the way home, and it seems to me that the flaw in the film is the lack of chemistry between the two male characters. I just never felt like there was any heat between them. The film never achieved romance, and then asks the viewers to pretend that it did. It is a flaw in direction that we never felt anything between the characters. Ang Lee also had this problem in Sense and Sensibility. I remember feeling that both romances in that film felt a little icky.
Come to think of it, the romances in Ice Storm also felt icky. I guess that proves Ang Lee can't do love stories. Which makes all the fuss over this Brokeback to be nothing more than turning a little molehill of a movie into a mountain in the culture wars.
I can't really recommend the film. It isn't good enough to justify getting the images in your head of men doing their twisted enemas-as-act of love thing. I can't really pan it either. It isn't thematically coherent enough to be insidious. It is what it is. Whatever that is.
34 comments:
Ms. Nicolosi:
I think you are philistine in your comments on Brokeback Mountain. Nobody uses the word 'sodomy' but bigoted homophobes.
M.C.,
Nobody uses the word "homophobe" except people who have decided to base their entire worldview on the state of humanity since about 1995. If you are unsure on what "sodomy" means, please be sure to aquaint yourself with everything regarding the issue which preceded that year.
In fact, your comment provides an opportunity to ask a question which arose in a conversation I had the other day. What does "homophobia" mean? Or, what is a "homophobe?" The reason I ask is because the wife of a friend of mine was trying to drag him to see Brokeback Mountain, and he didn't want to go. He justified it by saying "Look, I'm not a homophobe or anything, I just don't want to go." That fact that he would have even invoked that word got me thinking about what it must mean.
I don't think it has any meaning except as a slur against those who beleive homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, meaning that to engage in them is to do violence to the human nature with which we were created. But I would like to hear what you have to say.
I am not sure about who 'sgf' is. I am only guessing that is the same person to whom I addressed my first comment.
Thank you for your explanation, and yes I do know very well what "sodomy' means and when to use the word. Your explanation is too vague to make any sense to me, and I am wondering if you could help me out. I don't remember where I was in 1995, and probably I missed some "important' event that year.
Here is my understanding of the word:
Sodomy, or to sodomize has clear meanings, which carry 'the intent to rape anally another person, or the act of doing so.' Consequently 'Sodomy' is a politically-loaded word, which tends to reveal a bias in the person using it. Anal rape is called sodomy. To use the word sodomize when referring to the consensual sex between two adults reveals a bias in the person using the word. it doesn't correctly describe the consensual act, since sodomy, as it has come to understood legally and in general usage, almost always implies coercion by one party to force another party receive anal sex.
Many people use the word 'homophobe' which was coined in the 1950s in Britain and has been in every major English dictionary ever since the mid-1970s. It means a person who has an aversion to or hatred of homosexual persons. Any well-read person would know that the word homophobe is used in both scholarly and common parlance, with an easy to comprehend and seldom obscure meaning.
How quaint and self-centered you sound, to imagine that a word in the dictionary is created to slur you and your friends. You operate with a tedious and tired prejudice that imposes your interpretation of the world on everyone else. From your comments, it seems that you understands homosexual sex to be 'unnatural,' when in fact it is completely natural, 'natural' meaning that it occurs spontaneously and universally in many different animal populations, including humans, and has been known to occur for many thousands of years. It occurs as spontaneously as heterosexual sexuality, and if you execute all the homosexuals (Hitler tried this) you would be disappointed to discover that the very next generation of men (mostly Germen men in Hitler's case) would have a predictable and consistent occurrence of homosexuality, implying that it is probably not related to choice or conditioning, but intrinsic, i.e., genetically-coded.
To say that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered is hateful speech. Homosexuals lead fulfilling and wonderful lives, with or without the permission and blessing of homophobes, of which you are clearly a member. You are merely mouthing the unscientific hate-speech against gays originating with certain religions. This statement about gays being 'intrinsically disordered' is not scientifically-supported, and has been renounced by every credible scientific and medical association in the world. George Bernard Shaw called those who desperately cling to brutal and unrefined world-views when criticizing art, as a last-ditch defense of their shallow pre-determined agendas, the last of the true 'Philistines.' By this he meant they sacrifice good reason and honest sensitivity to their political and cultural biases, rather than telling the truth from their heart-of-hearts.
One has to wonder why you are so angry against gays, people who have done you no harm -- but you needs to blame someone for the hateful worldview you have been taught -- this is very sad. Hopefully the Universe in its infinite abundance will bless you with the chance to breathe and forgive. You show little love or compassion or true dignity in your hateful comments. How sad!
...and about the movie:
It is "Brokeback Mountain" after all and not Castro Street. I think you miss the point of the movie. In my opinion it is not intended to promote homosexuality anymore that it is to promote living in Wyoming -- the drama of two Wyoming ranch hands who unexpectedly fall in love. They represent what real gay men and women experience all over the world every day - fear of ridicule and hate only because of who we love. The story is simply one slice of life without the added Hollywood glitz. Bravo to Ang Lee!
With regard to the lack of chemistry between the actors I think the chemistry was exactly what was needed to accurately portray the isolation these characters feel in being "gay" and in their inability to express their true feelings except in times of complete intimacy. Seems that the author is looking for a feel good and really "gay" movie like "Jeffrey" or "In And Out" to depict what it's "really like" to be gay. We are not, however, one dimensional as the author would probably have liked to seen portrayed. Yes, we too, can lead boring lives of unfullfillment just like some straight people. Surprise!
Also, your comment about the sex being "twisted enemas as acts-of-love" is particularly telling of your sexual biases. Would you call heterosexual intercourse "twisted douches as acts-of-love"? People express sexuality in a variety of ways, one of which is what you call “sodomy”. You should be reminded that “sodomy” is not an exclusively homosexual act.
With regard to any connection between abusive or neglectful parents (particularly father figures) and homosexuality is probably coincidental to ones being gay. It might however color the expression of one's gayness. Certainly gay people do not hold the market on abusive and neglectful parents. That would belong to the masses.
Finally, I found your multiple use of the word "icky" to be telling as to your immaturity in being able to confront certain issues as an adult, and to your grammatical limitations. I can't help but visualize a group of giddy little girls using that word to describe anything they don't like and then giggling with embarrassment.
Did I mention that I am gay? Just for the record, but I guess you got at least that.
I am someone other than Ms. Nicolosi, and if we're talking about slurs, it would probably be one to attribute to her my thoughts and words.
Turning first to your definition of "sodomy," the American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd college edition, c. 1985 defines sodomy as "1. Anal copulation of one male with another. 2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 3. Copulation with an animal." Whatever usage the word has acquired, or whether the speaker's opinion of the act can be gleaned from his or her use of the term itself, it seems that Ms. Nicolosi's use was precise. The fact that use of the word provoked a response such as yours says a lot more about the times, and the culture war Ms. Nicolosi referred to, than it does about her. Efforts are underway to take a word which has a precise meaning, and to eradicate its use or to paint the user of the word as a bigot. This is happening not out of any distaste for the word, but because the act it describes, which has long been considered contemptible, is now supposed to be considered a good thing. You have one opinion of that effort, and Ms. Nicolosi presumably has another. At least be honest enough to acknowledge that this is the dynamic at work, and to not imply that she is some knuckle dragging troglodyte simply because she is on the other side in a waging cultural battle.
Second, the same dictionary defines "homophobia" as "Fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." At what point does Ms. Nicolosi's post even come close to exhibiting such a fear? She thinks Brokeback Mountain is a bad movie. I'll even grant you that from her post, it can also be gleaned that she views homosexuality with some disfavor. When did she ever exhibit a fear of it though? I understand that there probably exists a clinical usage of the word "homophobia" to be applied to someone who has some neurotic fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. I have never heard the term used that way, though. But I have heard the terms used a lot, and it is usually meant to apply to someone who regards homosexuality with any degree of disfavor, and I do mean ANY degree of disfavor.
Regarding your statement that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenominon, I would respond that occurrence of a certain behavior in the animal world sets the bar pretty low as a justification of any sort for the behavior. Some animals eat their young if they have too many, kill their mating partners after copulation, or eat other animals while they are still alive. These, too, are naturally occurring phenomina, but they would hardly justify human engagement in the same. Also, I am also not even close to advocating for the wholesale execution of homosexuals, but I am also not sure what you intend to prove by saying that new homosexulas would spring up in the wake of such an event. There would be new drug addicts if we executed all the drug addicts, and new thieves if we executed all the thieves, and so on and so on. I'm not sure what that shows.
Regarding the wonderful and fulfilling lives homosexuals may or may not live, it is you who chose to identify the sum total of what a person is with the type of sexual activity he or she engages in, not me. I will tell you this though, and for this there is no proof other than honest introspection: no person who engages in homosexual acts is living as wonderful and fulfilling life as he or she could. Just like no one cheating on her husband is, and just like no one who cooks the books of his business every day is, and just like no one who has a job based on a fraudulent application is. You can't live the wonderful and fulfilled life that you were meant to when you are at war with the nature with which you were created. You may consider that hateful, and maybe will tell yourself that I am an antiquated bigot who doesn’t know what he is talking about, but that statement is true.
As long as we're speaking different languages, I'll add this: Hterosexual sex could not be described in the manner you articulated, because in humanity's sexuality, we have been created to show forth the very inner life of God. Sex is sacred because God is a fruitful communion of persons, and the sexual life of a man and woman is an icon of this inner dynamism of God. It is dull world on its way back to the dark ages that can't look at a man and woman and see the special complementarity built right into their very bodies. The fact that it is so plain is why the effort to erase that awareness in us has taken decades.
The admission at the end of your post, as you indicate, comes as no suprise. Again, it is unclear what you thought it established, or why you thought it necessary to include it. It's only unclear, though, until one realizes that this is the only justiifcation ever offered to back up the type of comments you make. Homosexuals look the world in the eye and say "You think it's so wrong? Well guess what, I'm gay," or parents say, "You think it's so wrong? Well guess what, my son is gay" and they basically dare the world to do something about it. No one wants to be the bad guy, and so the world tells you it's ok. Well, the world sold you a bill of goods. Homosexual acts are no ok, and will never lead to fulfillment, or happiness, anymore than an unlimited booze supply will lead to happiness and fulfillment for an alcoholic.
"Come to think of it, the romances in Ice Storm also felt icky."
Yes, Barbara, they were. But they were supposed to be. But that's not true of Brokeback Mountain. Lee seems not to be making a comment on the relationship between Jack & Ennis in the same way he was making a commentary on every relationship in Ice Storm.
MC . . . did you even read sgf's post? He (assuming sgf's a he, sorry if you're not) did not say, as you so gleefully misquote to suit your own ends, that "homosexuals are intrinsically disordered." sgf actually said, "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," (emphasis mine) not those who engage in them. In other words, you were reading your own assumptions into sgf's post.
Which is something you're also doing with your definition of "sodomy." Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
Please note, MC, that there is absolutely no connotation of rape here - or denotation, for that matter. That your definition equates sodomy with rape, I'd say that has quite a lot to say about how you personally feel about that act.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the only person who's been using what you'd call *hate speech* (by your own criteria) is you. No one else here has used slurs such as "philistine" - which (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you must be using to refer to "one uninformed in a special area of knowledge" rather than "a person who is guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic values". Yes? Becuase, if you are a frequent reader of Barbara's blog, you'd know the latter not to be the case at all; in fact, one could argue that she's dedicated her life to the pursuit of intellectual & artistic values in the area of writing in general & screenwriting specifically. So, too, in that light, one can not say that she's "uninformed in a special area of knowledge," either, can one? She's quite informed about film & screenwriting & that knowledge qualifies her to write reviews of films like Brokeback Mountain. Just because she didn't like the film & used a word (correctly, per a definition in a reference dictionary with worldwide acceptance) that makes you bristle, does not mean she's a philistine. (Unless she's from Philistia.)
My . . . you assume much, MC.
sgf, you beat me to it! You're 8am post didn't show up until after I posted mine. Great work!
I have been reading with interest the passionate debate generated by Ms. Nicolosi's "review" of Brokeback Mountain. I'm not sure if her writing was commisioned by the film industry or if this was simply one person's opinion. I will assume the latter since Ms. Nicolosi goes beyond a technical disection and into personal biases.
Given that everyone has an opinion and the right to express it I will give Ms. Nicolosi lattitude there. If on the other hand she is expressing a professional and unbiased review of film using credentials of "movie critic", then I think she has stepped over the line. And, therein lies my problem with her review. I don't think it is fair to the author of Brokeback Mountain, the producers, director, or actors for her to use her "credentials" as an opportunity to express personal biases.
Ms. Nicolosi, and all of the responding bloggers have every right to their opinion about homosexuality, sexual expression, GOD, whatever. The fact that the movie has served as a springboard fro all of this discussion justifies it's rightful position as a great film. And yes, not much happens, and there is a lack of communication between the characters. But to be critical of those things that make the film and the characters authentic is to completely miss the point. Also, it does not speak favorably of Ms. Nicolosi's expertise.
Surely, GOD who creates everything understands all expressions of love. Can't we get beyond the "hell and brimstone" and just say this movie is a wonderful telling of repressed life, and unfulfilled love. Isn't that Universal enough?
LLB
"I don't think it is fair to the author of Brokeback Mountain, the producers, director, or actors for her to use her "credentials" as an opportunity to express personal biases."
Larry, any form of criticism is filtered through the worldview of the critic. Period. You might call a worldview a bias but I'd beg to differ. For a very specific example of what you mean in this quote, please head over to boxofficemojo.com & read their review of the Narnia film. Now, that is true bias in action.
"The fact that the movie has served as a springboard fro all of this discussion justifies it's rightful position as a great film."
One could say the same thing for Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation. Greatness is never justified by the discussion a work foments. Much ink has been spilled on really dreadful works. As Barbara points out in her 01/22/2006 post on Munich, ". . . there is good art and bad art. There are two senses of this: good as technical proficiency and good as moral quality proceeding from the totality of the project - matter plus form, if you will." Amen. Brokeback Mountain, for me, fits this. Like most Ang Lee films, it's very well made. But it's lacking in the moral quality aspect that, as a Christian, is the touchstone in the determination of the overall quality of any work, whether cinema, theater, TV, book, music, etc.
"Surely, GOD who creates everything understands all expressions of love."
Yes, so long as they are within the boundaries He's set. He is, afterall, the Author of all life. It is, therefore, His right to demand of us that we behave in certain specific ways. Need I remind you that NAMBLA exists? They, as I'm sure you know, advocate "man-boy love" &, while a man or a boy (or both) might believe that what is being expressed in such a relationship is "love," it is something God would never condone.
Gene and sgf. My... I am impressed!! I really think you should give Ms Nicolosi the chance to post a reply (unless you represent her) I Still thinking about "...unless she's from Philistia" You are trying too hard Gene.
My sincere apologies Gene. GOD didn't tell me that you had been bestowed the honor of spokesperson. All of that intimate knowledge of GOD's will and intention must be quite a burden to bear here in Sodom.
On second thought I think that I'll keep my version of GOD thank you.
And finally, with regard to the controversy Brokeback Mountain has generated here on this blog, in the end it isn't really about if the movie is slow, the characters well developed, or if this is a tragic love story. No, it all comes down to the fact that it tells a story that it includes homosexual acts of love. That alone is it's undoing in your narrow window of acceptance. How sad.
Larry Buffington
MC, It's Barbara's blog . . . she can post whenever she wants. And don't think too hard about the Philistia line. It was just a joke.
"GOD didn't tell me that you had been bestowed the honor of spokesperson."
I just love it when folks reply to a post with snippy li'l quips. See, I'm not God's spokesperson - that would be the Pope. I'm just a practicing Catholic who knows my faith, thanks. Nothin' more. Hey, even Christ had to ride a donkey into Jerusalem. I'll be more than glad to play that part.
"On second thought I think that I'll keep my version of GOD thank you."
Your version? Yeah, have fun with that. Hmmm . . . I'll stick with the God of the Bible, thanks. The God that I can't put into a box shaped like me.
"No, it all comes down to the fact that it tells a story that it includes homosexual acts of love."
Um . . . no. It all comes down to that fact that Jack & Ennis make the choice to ruin the lives of everyone around them because of their lust. The only tragic character in the film is Alma.
Please learn this, MC & Larry: Just because folks might disagree with you, doesn't invalidate their POV. Or yours, for that matter. Just means they have different tastes. And, as matters of taste are not to be disputed, we're all free to have our own.
Gene, "Christ had to ride a donkey into Jerusalem" what is the point you are trying to make here?
"Christ had to ride a donkey into Jerusalem" Gene, what is the point you are trying to make here? And when you say that you would be glad to play that role, do you mean the role of Jesus or the role of the donkey?
About the Philistia line, I suspected it was a joke, and I know you laughed at that.
"'Christ had to ride a donkey into Jerusalem'
Gene, what is the point you are trying to make here? And when you say that you would be glad to play that role, do you mean the role of Jesus or the role of the donkey?"
Well, above I expressed that I am content to worship Christ, the founder of the Catholic Church & follow Him rather than rely on my own understanding of Scripture (since I am a fallible human being, I need to rely on the authority Christ gave the Church through the Pope & the Magisterium to interpret His Word) & not put myself or my will above Him & His will for me. This voluntary giving of one's will over to God is done in humility & not meant to be a source of pride. I am fully aware that it was, in part, my sins that caused Christ to be nailed to a cross. In turning my life over to Him, He can (hopefully) work through me for His greater good, rather than mine. ("I must decrease & He increase.") We were created by God to worship Him. And He demands to be worshiped in very specific ways (see Revelation).
In light of that, I think you could probably answer your own questions, MC. But (since we both know they were loaded to begin with) here it is from the donkey's mouth: God may use me in any way He sees fit. He is my Lord & Savior & I would never seek to put myself in His place. Just as he rode that donkey into Jerusalem, it is my hope that He will use me to spread His Gospel in whatever way He deems best. My life is not my own; it is His because Christ is the one who purchased my salvation with His death on the cross. I must choose to follow Him. The donkey, being an animal, had no choice. But we do, being human & having free will. Christ died for all persons &, being God, He knew full well that some would make the choice not to follow Him. But it is a testament to the great & infinite love He has for us (a love we can never hope to comprehend with our finite, human minds here on earth) that He sacrificed Himself anyway!
Does that help?
Also, there is some very specific symbolism in Christ's use of a donkey to ride into Jerusalem. You might wish to do some research on that.
"About the Philistia line, I suspected it was a joke, and I know you laughed at that."
Oh, & please don't presume that I laughed at you rather than the joke. The joke came from my love of wordplay. Nothing more should be read into it.
. . . and every question I had about you has just been answered.
" . . . and every question I had about you has just been answered."
Which means . . . what, MC? I've 'splained. Your turn.
I guess I'm not as eloquent as the speakers here, as being a high school student from CA. But I just wanted to praise God for you guys and Ms. Nicolosi. I guess I would be classified as an evangelical, and I don't believe the Catholics recognize any elements of outside churches. However, I wanted to thank you Catholics for "giving a ready defense" (1 Peter 3:15) admist the cultural wars of this nation. As you guys have been on the front lines taking the heat, we Protestants have been also tried and tested. I thank God for your commitments to Him, and I hope that He'll bless you guys. I've been following the arguements carefully, and I've been satisfied by sgf and gene's reasons. I want to state here, if there is any doubt, that the Church is not bigoted in the sense where it hates homosexuals but rather the sin of homosexuality. I have homosexual friends that I love as brothers, but I know that Jesus died on the cross to liberate them from sin. Jesus loves them also, or why else would He died for their sins? But Jesus loves them too much to let them stay who they are. Thank you guys
Ms.Nicolosi:
I am very concerned at the tactics you use to get your voice heard. You seem to attract a good amount of religous people who are trusting in your catholic point of view.... let me digress. I read your review of Brokeback Mountain and then went on to read all of the thoughtful and very interesting comments that followed. I was very impressed with the time,devotion & passion with which your readers responded. I even learned some things!! What I was totally taken aback with was the three or four postings at the end which refered to NOTHING concerning Brokeback mountain and in fact seemed to be adds for "a remodeling website", a link to a cheaper means of premium movie channels, and last but certainly NOT the least, one that actually said they accidentally found your website, liked and have bookmarked it and then goes on to say "I will pop back in from time to time to see what you have new here. Feel free to check mine out also 'better sex'"... Are you leaving these on your website to get random people who are doing searches for these other things so you can boost your number of "hits"??? How low!! Get this tasteless stuff off of your very lovely website... Other than that, I very much enjoyed reading your reader comments.
Hi Blogger,
Most of the stuff you are writing here is very new to me... however it is very interesting too that is why I keep
reading more often.
Regards,
earn money online
Seriously i was going to really address this artical with respect, but the author is so out -of -synch and clueless , there is no point.
Enjoy the world though the pinhole you've created for yourself.
How old are you? I hope under 18, since you still use words like "icky."
CALIFORNIA WEB HOSTING
Can I Help You.. Yes If you want to get on the web. If you want to start learning about creating a web site of your own.. go to http://webhost11.com. to find out more about dedicated server webhosting ... We can help find a web host for you.
Nice blog. Loved all the free amateur adult movie. Keep up the good work and I shall return.
Nice blog. Loved all the free black adult movie. Keep up the good work and I shall return.
I have good news for you to see. It is showing you a whole lot!
You are invited to check it out if you get time at bank loans
Your blog seems to be a perfect guide in helping opthers to develop a blof of there own. i have taken some tips from it and i hope to implement on my blog. thanxs for the help . regards . Mortgage
Great site. Close to what I was searching for about free adult movie site. keep up the good work and I will return again.
how do you come with so many ideas. i am trying to write on my wedding loans , but can get much out of it .hope this helps me out. thanxs
Great site. Close to what I was searching for about free black adult movie. keep up the good work and I will return again.
Thank you!
[url=http://mhswnlng.com/cclu/zoxr.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://yreodjpr.com/vsbn/cfzf.html]Cool site[/url]
Great work!
My homepage | Please visit
Good design!
http://mhswnlng.com/cclu/zoxr.html | http://ifwvtbkl.com/xkkn/kldf.html
Post a Comment