Christianity Today has an article today that reflects on the movie reviews given by Christian media for Brokeback Mountain. Author Jeffrey Overstreet doesn’t pay attention to the gadflys like Stephen Bennett but instead focuses on more reputable sources.
His review shows that most Christian reviewers recognize the technical brilliance of the film along with the moving character development. The interesting aspect of this article is the wide range of response given by reviewers who start with the premise that “homosexuality is considered a sin”.
For those interested in the nuances now seen in certain Christian influences, this can be a thought provoking read. Overall, the reviews were surprisingly favorable.
A couple of reviews down, under Memoirs of a Geisha, the article mentions “forbidden emotions”. Oy! How those words resonate with me! It’s also so much of what Brokeback Mountain is about. This farm boy spent years suppressing forbidden emotions. It’ll break your back…
We’ll wait for the DVD regarding Brokeback Mountain. We rented the DVD of Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon movie, and quite frankly, as interesting as the movie was, the “special features,” which showed how they made the ninja scenes, were just as interesting.
Regarding King Kong, much as we liked Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies–each of which clocked in at about 3 hours–I suspect that a three-hour version of King Kong is something of an over-indulgence. The original (which we just rented, again) was entertaining at 1 hr 40 minutes. We subsequently rented the 1976 remake, which clocks in at a little over two hours, and found it quite boring. I can’t imagine how Jackson could further inflate the movie to 3 hours.
Some things should never be re-made. Could anyone consider a remake of Gone With The Wind?
I found this quote telling, as it seems to describe why there are exgays to begin with:
Steven Isaac (Plugged In) says, “Taiwanese director Ang Lee … certainly doesn’t soft-sell the damage done by the choices Jack and Ennis make. But you don’t walk away from Brokeback Mountain thinking about the destructiveness of acting on homosexual temptations. Rather, you’re left with the idea that these cowboy-lovers would have experienced none of this pain if only social and moral norms had allowed them to pursue their passion from the get-go.”
He points out that the obstacles to Jack and Ennis’s relationship are, in fact, good things. “Usually it’s a negative thing when people give in to the societal norms around them and give up on their dreams, refuse to step across racial divides, etc. But here, Ennis’ reluctance to live with Jack is a good example of how established—biblical—morality within a culture can help people make right decisions. (It isn’t a pressure so strong that it keeps him from repeatedly having sex with Jack, though.)”
Strikes me as a very good description of the mindset that animates conservative Christians.
The decision that Ennis made not to live with Jack wasn’t based on a Biblical proscription alone or the tacit atmosphere of his town.
He’d been taken to see the body of a brutally mutilated and murdered gay neighbor.
A trauma like that broadcast to Ennis when he was a child, is precisely why black boys were told of or witness to lynchings.
Not only that. Lynchings were treated like a sport. With white women and children in tow as if to show that this brutality is what the black man deserved.
This is no less true of why Ennis, only a little boy, was taken to see something this horrible.
These were warning posts: ‘this is what happens to queers’.
Not because they don’t live quietly and lawfully with their neighbors.
But only and singly for being gay and perhaps living with another of their own.
And Ennis, already a taciturn person, would PROFOUNDLY resist his life BE open as gay.
It might have contributed to the reason he was so close mouthed at all.
He and Jack, and their wives deserved better.
And it’s not the fault of gay men like Jack and Ennis that they didn’t.
I would also note the persistant prejudice that gay men are woman haters.
Far from it.
And because they don’t, and feel some appreciation for women, it’s this compassion for women that traps them and the women they get involved with, into thinking that a married life is enough to bind them.
Being gay is more than that. And the reduction of gay sex as strictly the motive for gay men being together is another miss by straight people.
Homosexuality isn’t so superficial or dismissive.
Straight folks just keep telling themselves it is.
Regan DuCasse at December 23, 2005 04:14 PM
Exactly. And that’s why I refer to gay people as being the new “niggers.” It is impolite to refer to black people as being such, so that is why straight white people have transferred their invective to gay people.
That doesn’t mean that the straight white people don’t villify black people as being “niggers.” They just learned not to do it in public.
Apologies for the harsh rhetoric. But it’s the fact. And I have had relatives who I could cite if they were alive.
Regan wrote: > would also note the persistant prejudice that gay men are woman haters.>
I absolutely hate this notion. Maybe some are for a variety of reasons, but it is not true in my own life or that of those I know. I have never had many gay male friends, but I have more lesbian friends than anything. I find women beautiful (another false belief about gay men) and attractive, and I have probably seen more naked women than any gay man ever. It does not gross me out or bother me, but it just does nothing sexually for me. One of the arguments I have read against Brokeback Mountain is why would anyone watch something that is not attractive to himself. That is silly because my spouse and I watch tons of films with lots of female sexuality–it has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
I get tired about hearing these outdated ideas about gay men.
“But here, Ennis’ reluctance to live with Jack is a good example of how established—biblical—morality within a culture can help people make right decisions. (It isn’t a pressure so strong that it keeps him from repeatedly having sex with Jack, though.)”
I cannot for the life of me make sense of this quote and I am usually quite good at understanding conservative Christian arguments, even if I don’t agree with them. So even though this “morality” causes pain and suffering for both men and their wives, and even though giving into societal pressures and surrendering dreams is typically a negative thing, this time, its good, *despite* the suffering. . .because its biblical?
One of the main reasons I was discouraged from sinning when I participated in that kind of culture was that sin was supposed to make life harder and cause heartache, i.e., be intrinsically bad for you. The mantra is that the Bible (and what they deem as God’s moral codes) are ultimately 100% the best decision for everyone. . .am I the only one catching the paradox here?
I agree with Reagan. It wasn’t Biblical, it was the trauma of seeing that dead man , who was most likely killed by his father. A double whammy.
And a prophesy fullfilled at the end of the film by the same brutal death of his lover.
I have heard people say that the two men were “selfish, and childish to think only of themselves and their own happiness.”
What happiness? Were the women “happy” in their marriges?
No. They sensed something missing. They were just as victimized by their social restraints as the men. Lets face it, the guys didn’t even know what to call the things they felt; except to say “I not a queer”.
I’ve also heard straight people object to the violence in their lovemaking. To me it seemed an extention of their repression. It was “manly” to them that way.
If you haven’t seen the film, don’t expect a blockbuster, or a shockingly sexy movie.
It’s a little film, shot in very tight close-ups.
And it’s NOT a gay movie at all. But it sure stays with you.
I think the message for me was…
DENY YOURSELF, AND YOU DENY YOURSELF.
There’s no offense in being right, raj.
BBM is becoming a hit. Most of all because of all the things that make a great movie.
Solid plotline and character development. Outstanding location visuals and strong acting.
Straight men that like a good movie might relate better to BBM than people give them credit for.
Lots of straight men have gay brothers and sisters and friends.
And if they’d never considered talking to them frankly before, if they ever did-perhaps and hopefully, this might open dialogue and understanding.
Because most of the time, gay young people aren’t given a fair opportunity to talk about themselves or their feelings.
Regan, it is unfortunate that BBM was released in the same year as George Clooney’s Good Night And Good Luck. It is likely that the two of them will be vying for the principal movie awards. Something like Gone With the Wind (the best American movie ever made) vs. Wizard of Oz, both of which were released in 1939. If WoO had been released in 1940, it would have won all of the awards.
I don’t know what is going to happen with GN&GL vs. BBM in regards the awards, and frankly I don’t care. I tend to like science fiction from the 1950s and 1960s, but most reviewers are total idiots in regards SciFi.