Stephen Benentt and Exodus have issued statements condemning Brokeback having never indicated if they have so much read the original literary work or seen the current film. Statements from both organizations were issued prior to today’s release date and I sorta doubt they held a special preview-screening for the religious right.
I shall be upfront, I too have not seen the movie yet so my commentary is based on the original short story, which I HAVE ACTUALLY READ and will quote from to back up my assertions unlike Bennett and Exodus. A paperback of E. Anne Proulx’s orginal story is sold at WAL*MART. However, in this post I’ve had to spoil surprises in the story-line so only click below to continue reading if you’re cool with that.
1) Simply getting married is not going to cure you of your homo-attractions. Even the most nutty ex-gays agree with that. Neither Ennis nor Jack indicate they had ever pursued any sort of change. Perhaps if they had gone to their local Exodus affiliate they could have rebuilt their marriages.
2)The majority of Ennis and Jack’s “false” homosexual encounters involved sporadic, probably unprotected, intoxicated, shame filled sex. Because according to ex-gays gay sex is false, dangerous and ultimately unfulfilling. Ex-gays too often view gay sex as dangerous and have been known to devote entire radio broadcasts to that effect.
They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises, but saying not a goddamn word except once Ennis said, “I’m not no queer,” and Jack jumped in with “Me neither. A one-shot thing. Nobody’s business but ours…”
…The room stank of semen and smoke and sweat and whiskey, of old carpet and sour hay, saddle leather, shit and cheap soap. Ennis lay spread-eagled, spent and wet, breathing deep, still half tumescent, Jack blowing forceful cigarette clouds like whale spouts
3) Neither men desires to identify as “gay.” The term “non-gay homosexual” applies much more. Jack said if he wished to live the gay lifestyle he would move to Denver.
I goddamn hate it that you’re goin a drive away in the mornin and I’m goin back to work. But if you can’t fix it you got a stand it,” he said. “Shit. I been lookin at people on the street. This happen a other people? What the hell do they do?”
“It don’t happen in Wyomin and if it does I don’t know what they do, maybe go to Denver,” said Jack, sitting up, turning away from him.
4) Ennis stays faithful to Jack but Jack had been involved with other guys. Since as we all know homosexuals are not monogamous and the homosexual lifestyle only leads to heartbreak.
The old man spoke angrily. “I can’t get no help out here. Jack used a say, ‘Ennis del Mar,’ he used a say, ‘I’m goin a bring him up here one a these days and we’ll lick this damn ranch into shape.’ He had some half-baked idea the two a you was goin a move up here, build a log cabin and help me run this ranch and bring it up. Then, this spring he’s got another one’s goin a come up here with him and build a place and help run the ranch, some ranch neighbor a his from down in Texas. He’s goin a split up with his wife and come back here. So he says. But like most a Jack’s ideas it never come to pass.”
Daniel,
Ignoring the obvious satire about the things with which we “agree” (clever approach)…
I don’t have the story here with me at the moment so I’m going from memory. But here goes:
2. Though the sex was “unprotected”, the time period of most of the story was pre-AIDS so the term “unprotected sex” doesn’t mean much here. Also, though the initial sex was while intoxicated, much of the subsequent sex appears not to have been, especially that during daylight hours on the mountain.
The hotel room described above seems to be more of a description of the sordid nature of the hotel rather than some indication that they were drunk (unless they also were involving cheap soap, carpet and hay in their activities… and that’s just too kinky for my imagination).
Also, I don’t get the sense that their sex was shame filled. That isn’t evident in the story. I don’t recall any indications of regret or any resolutions to stop – at least after the first stop at the end of the first summer which had more to do with a presumed ending of an experience than with shame.
They don’t identify as “queer” or initially think of this as a gay thing but instead as an “us here right now” kind of thing. But I think this indicates an acceptance of what they had rather than a rejection. They accepted what they had because it wasn’t “queer” rather than accepting it in spite of it being “queer”.
4. SPOILER: True, Jack was not faithful. Proulx, in her inimitable way, discusses how midway through the story Ennis tells Jack that there hadn’t been any other guy and Jack says the same, though he had ridden more than just bulls since he’d seen Ennis last. However, Jack’s playing around seems (as best I can recall) to have happened after Ennis refuses to leave Alma and settle down with him.
Proulx is a brilliant writer and observer of humanity. One of the interesting twists is that Jack tells Ennis he’d become involved with a rancher’s wife, knowing Ennis wouldn’t feel threatened by that. We later find (in the section you quote) that it was a rancher, not a wife.
I think what makes this a great story (and it is unquestionably “great”) and what allows it to reach and touch far more than a gay audience, is that it wasn’t written to make a political point. The characters are not heros or good decent people. They weren’t pure in their motivations. Unlike the movie, they weren’t even attractive. They were ignorant dirt-poor uneducated hicks filled with their own prejudices and fears confronted with something they had no clue how to deal with. Proulx doesn’t condemn the cruel evil world, she doesn’t show them struggling against a greater evil. She just shows the lives. And it’s that simple telling of lives that brings straight men and women to tears.
I’m a going to see the movie tonight at the Grove in Los Angeles. It opened at 12:01 on two screens there but I’ve not yet heard if the midnight showings were full.
I’m sure the “ex-gay / anti-gay” crowd are more terrified that people will go see Brokeback Mountain than they are disgusted with its content. The one thing that they refuse to do is get to know people who experience life differently than they, which is the timeless remedy for inter-group hatred. “Get to know me!” “Walk mile in my moccasins!” “Come down from heaven and be made incarnate from the virgin Mary and be made man!” (I guess God must’ve thought it best to join his children rather than just judge them…yes?)
The more the world sees how people of any group are filled with the same human joys and sufferings (the same humanity)–the more they gently come to realize that the “other” looks a lot like “me”. It’s very hard to demonize people when you actually get to know them. These people are hardened against a message that even little children can learn from their cartoons. How many Disney movies revolve around the concept of learning to love those that aren’t like you?
Proulx’s fiction has more truth about human nature than any of the angry crowing that comes from that black crowd. Her readers, and many who see this movie will recognize that truth, and the anti-gay’s know it. I’ve been reading the shared stories at The Movie Website . What a pleasant tonic they are for the bitterness poured out by Chambers, Bennett and their ilk!
Oh I didn’t know you were in SoCal. Yeah I think I’m going to have to pony up the $13 or however much it is this weekend.
Does this movie only work because two straight actors play the lead roles? Jake Gyllenhaal is probably the only reason I will go and see this movie.
That’s something along the lines of what Randy Thomas is saying on his personal blog.
Yeah, I live right down the street from The Grove where it’s playing.
You may want to either buy your ticket on-line or come up to LA early tomorrow. Tonight’s showings are now sold out for 5:30, 6:30, 7:55, 8:35, 9:50, and 11:00. I suspect 11:45 will sell out as well once people start showing up thinking they can walk up and get a ticket to an earlier show.
I’m more interested in seeing “Rent.”
Straight actors playing gay characters in modern film…Men playing women in Shakespeare’s day… Whites in blackface on the early American stage…
It “works that way” because that’s all people are ready to accept for the moment. Give it time.
In other news… Gay men play straight guys in movies… Fantastic music has been written and performed by gays for many years… Theatre and art are blessed by an abundance of both gay and straight professionals who satisfy viewers regardless of orientation. We’re doing quite fine. And, besides…all we really know about the sexuality of our beloved Hollywood actors and actresses is what is marketed to us. Well…that and the lovely gossip. 😉
Mike, I’m with you. I don’t go to the movies anymore, or as we say in Chicago, “‘da show.” Seems to me you spend way too much money to walk into a place that’s crowded with sticky floors, and and reminds me of …..
Oh forget it! 😉
Timothy!
I live in Studio City….how’s about a coffee?
I would love to meet you.
I thought about going to this preview of BBM. But I’ll wait.
The Grove and the movieplex over there is too mega large.
Although I love the old fashioned movie palace feel of the theater.
Any hoo, holla.
Regan,
I’d love to have coffee with you!!
Maybe we should see if Daniel wants to come up from Long Beach or it there are other XGW folks around.
Well, I am in Burbank, if you are interested.
What puzzles me is that when I was young, evangelicals were vehemently agains movie going. No eC would be caught dead or alive attending the devil’s picture show. Nor playing cards, nor watching live theater, nor women cutting their hair. And of course, no true Christian woman wore makeup. Nor nylons. Nor shaved their legs. My youthful impression of true Christian women includes hairy legs and hair in a bun. How evangelical Christianity changes. It seems to be a religion particularly attuned to new fashions and fads.
Dale…
you would absolutely be invited to join us, with one caveat. I’m not going to voluntarily sit and have coffee while someone bashes my faith.
Your posts here seem to primarily be focused on attacking Christianity. I don’t know if your conversation is the same but, if so, it would not be welcome. But if you can be civil then yeah I’d love to have you join us.
Posted by: Timothy at December 12, 2005 09:02 PM
Timothy, I decided to let you gracefully respond to that one 😉 Good job.
David