Film: Brokeback Mountain

[L2R]

what year was it set? i mean, these are country men in not so modern times. i don't think their options were that clear to them.

your critique of adulterers i share, but this is no different to the countless other adulterous characters is countless other films. unlike other films, i actually gave a shit about these characters, despite how much i despise the act of adultery.

i found this far more moving than lust,caution, but that's only because the sex in the latter film was just so damn gratuitous. both are very good films imo. looking forward to taking woodstock.

 

[TheDeceased]

It was set in the 1950s.

I'm not trying to suggest it would've been easy for them. What I'm saying is if they were really in love then they could have tried a little harder. They could have moved to an area of the United States that was less homphobic. I seem to remember one of them going to mexico at specifically for that reason - to get laid in a part of the woorld that was at the time, less oppressive towards homosexuality... So why couldn't they have both gone to Mexico?

Logically then they could have been together and not destroyed the lives of their future families.

A lot of people justify Jack and Ennis' behavoir by saying that they had no choice, but really that's just a load of horseshit.

Conveniently for the sake of my argument a number of people have mentioned the film Capote in this thread. Truman Capote was openly homosexual during the 1950's in the United States. He didn't marry a woman and cheat on her "because he had no other choice" or "because he wasn't aware of his options."

The film (Brokeback) uses cinematic techniques to dupe it's audience into feeling sympathy for characters who, in reality, are absolutely immoral and reprehensible.

There isn't any excuse for repeatedly cheating on your wife, especially if you're having unprotected gay sex with strange men, is there? Really?

 

[AmorRoark]

lol @ the thought of Mexico being less oppressive to homosexual relationships, which is what they were, not just fuck buddies.

 

[TheDeceased]

I freely admit that I don't know that much about the difference between Wyoming and Mexico in the 1950s\1960s in terms of homosexuality, but overall my point still stands I think.

They didn't even attempt to be together.

AmorRoark, if Jack was you husband the father of your children - and you found out that he was going off and fucking random guys behind your back, would you still understand?

What if you (or one of your children) were later diagnosed with HIV or some other sexually transmitted disease?

There are men today that behave in the same way Jack and Ennis did and they justify it in the exact same way.

They are cowards.

 

[AmorRoark]

I don't judge movie characters very quickly TBH.

I can certainly see why someone would be in a dilemma being raised with such ideas that macho-ness is a central part of your being, your personality, your identity, while at the same time having these feelings which are regarded by your society as the exact opposite of this manufactured identity.

Generally I think Ennis is more of a sympathetic character than Jack because he didn't screw a ton of random guys... just Jack.

Yes, there are people out there who still do what the main characters did but the point is that it is set in a particular time in a particular place.

Were their actions justified in the whole calculation of things? Probably not. But look at what happened when Jack was found out... he was killed.

So you think they were cowards for staying in the place where they knew how to make a living and kept this relationship a secret? That's fine. I don't, because I never was and never will be a secretly gay man in a very anti-homosexual atmosphere. It's not like many of the cities in the U.S. were much more open to gays in the 1950s anyway. You do know that gay bars in cities were often raided and their photos were put in the newspaper, essentially ruining their lives? I've taken numerous classes that deal with and analyze the history of homosexuality/being 'outed' in the 20th century. I honestly feel it's more complicated than the way you're presenting it.

They probably should have never married and had children, I guess. Then again I don't seem to judge them as harshly as you. Are you gay? I didn't think so.

 

[Jamshyd]

Arguing that they didn't have a choice is ludicrous. They didn't have to get married and they didn't have to let their cocks control their decisions, leading them to cheat on their wives. They're supposed to be men, not teenagers going through puberty.

With all due respect, I think you're not very familiar with how gay people live in 90% of the globe. The situation in 50s USA is still very much a reality these days in other countries.

In fact, I'd argue that the only reason this is not so common in America anymore is NOT because of further acceptance of homosexuality, but because of the dissolution of the "sanctity" of the family in American society.

The story of the gay man who married to survive and then lived the nightmare of the consequences that followed is not as uncommon as you seem to imagine. This particular point is not even relevant when criticizing the film, IMO. It never crossed my mind because it was to be expected.

 

[TheDeceased]

They probably should have never married and had children, I guess.

Probably?

But look at what happened when Jack was found out... he was killed

Yes but it is fiction isn't it? Having the character murdered is an effective plot device the author used to further reinforce the idea that it was impossible for them to have been together. I'm not saying that no gay men were ever bashed or murdered simply for being gay. Hell, it still happens today. But that doesn't mean that it was an inevitable outcome in the 50s/60s. There were lots of gay American men in those decades that didn't get married to women and didn't die.

Homosexuality + the 1950s doesn't equal death.

Jack wasn't very careful, was he?

The entire story appears to be constructed in order to justify the actions of two men who were too afraid to love each other for fear of consequences, so instead they chose to willingly destroy the lives of innocent women and children. I don't mean to be overly judgemental when I say they are cowards, I just struggle to see it any other way. They didn't stand up for what they truly believed in. They didn't fight for the one they really loved. They just took the easy route and conformed to societal expectations. In that sense, they're cowards aren't they?

It's not like many of the cities in the U.S. were much more open to gays in the 1950s anyway. You do know that gay bars in cities were often raided and their photos were put in the newspaper, essentially ruining their lives? I've taken numerous classes that deal with and analyze the history of homosexuality/being 'outed' in the 20th century. I honestly feel it's more complicated than the way you're presenting it.

I don't mean to simplify or diminish the difficulties of being openly gay in the early 20th century. I'm sure that it would have been very difficult for them. They would've had to be very discreet to ensure their safety. However they didn't have to go to gay bars, having already met each other. So discretion, in their case, wouldn't have been as much of an issue.

They could have travelled across the states together, working on ranches - and fucking each other in secret, like they did during their first sexual encounters.

Or they could have sacrificed their careers for the sake of their love for one another and gone to a city that was less populated by gay bashing hicks and more open minded towards homosexuality. To suggest that there were only a handful of places like this in the US during the 50s/60s is inaccurate. I'm not saying that there were a large number of cities hosting gay pride parades. But they could have overcome the odds, or at least tried.

For me, the great love stories are those in which the characters will do anything for love: fight for it, sacrifice, etc. If Romeo and Juliet got married to other people and occasionally got together for a fuck out in the woods, it wouldn't make for much of an inspirational love story would it?

Then again I don't seem to judge them as harshly as you.

My reaction is mainly due to everyone saying how wonderful a love story this is and how they feel so much for the characters. I wouldn't be so openly judgemental of them if people weren't so quick to completely justify their behaviour and ignore the plight of the real victims of the story. Practically nobody in this entire thread mentioned the wives/children. Why? Because it's more of a priority in this day and age to sympathise with those of a particular sexual preference, regardless of how atrociously they behave?

Are you gay? I didn't think so.

No I'm not, but I don't see how that compromises my opinion in any way.

 

[TheDeceased]

With all due respect, I think you're not very familiar with how gay people live in 90% of the globe. The situation in 50s USA is still very much a reality these days in other countries.

For a straight guy, I'm actually pretty familiar with the gay community. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I work very closely with gay men who are HIV positive.

The story of the gay man who married to survive and then lived the nightmare of the consequences that followed is not as uncommon as you seem to imagine.

I don't imagine it to be uncommon at all nor have I suggested that the film is unrealistic. I am very well aware of how common it is for gay men to be married to women even today in open, accepting societies. I mentioned that a couple of posts back.

"Married to survive" is bullshit as far as I'm concerned, though. Can you explain how it was essential for either Jack or Ennis to marry women in order to survive?

This particular point is not even relevant when criticizing the film, IMO. It never crossed my mind because it was to be expected.

The fact that the main characters of the film, despite being married to women and having young children to look after, fucked countless male sexual partners without using protection isn't relevant?

It's to be expected? Expected of whom? All gay men in the 1950s? Or just in Wyoming?

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[AmorRoark]

Please list the cities that were open to homosexual men in the U.S. in the 1950s. By this I mean would be able to sustain a job without fear of being outed and losing it at some point as a poor working-class man. NYC? Not even sure about that. I guess San Francisco was already transforming to a gay-friendly(ish) environment at that time due to the armed forces unloading the men they had discharged for being gay after WWII. But how would they know that as working-class men who had never travelled outside the West? Were they just to guess where the gays were accepted and hope they were right?

In response to the 'roaming cowboy' suggestion, didn't you get the impression from the film that they were already getting black-listed from ranchers due to their questionable behavior? I think that was part of the point and why they had to separate.

I think a lot of people sympathize and agree with your position. If I remember right my boyfriend had the same complaints.

However, at the end of the day, yes, the fictional story revolved around the two main characters thus it's natural to sympathize with them more than the other characters IMO. I think this is a better explanation for people's sympathy toward the main characters than your theory that today people are suppose to care more about hopeless homosexual men than the women and children.

Also in response to your 'not using protection and possibly passing diseases onto women and children' I don't even know (and I doubt you do either) whether a secretly gay man in Wyoming/Texas would understand the mechanics that STDs can be passed from male to male through anal sex. HIV was definitely not in at that time in the U.S. I don't know how they would even be aware such a disease existed.

And to be clear, when's the last time you saw this? I'll reiterate that Ennis didn't fuck countless male sexual partners. He fucked one. The one he did happened to be sexually promiscuous (a fact that I don't think Ennis knew til the end).

 

[TheDeceased]

I'm not particularly familiar with the United States so I can't give you names of cities in which gay men could have sustained jobs. San Francisco wasn't the only one though. Obviously there were also numerous places in California during the 50s/60s... and I mentioned Capote, who lived in New York I think from what I remember of the film. We aren't talking about 1875 here..

How were they to know that there were other places to go?

They weren't... But if they truly loved each other they would have tried, wouldn't they?

They didn't seem to make any effort at all.

As for being blacklisted, they weren't being particularly discrete throughout the entire course of the movie and also there are ranches outside of Wyoming.

They wouldn't have known about HIV/AIDS, no. But they would've been aware of sexually transmitted diseases in general. Just because they were brought up in Wyoming doesn't mean they're completely ignorant. Diseases have been around for a long time.

I saw the film when it came out on DVD. I remember Jack was the premiscuous one. Doesn't change anything though. If you cheat with one person or twelve people, you're still a bit of a shit. Ennis isn't an absolute whore, but that doesn't make his actions excusable.

I didn't say people are supposed to care more about hopeless homosexual men than women and children. I assume you're refering to this comment:

Practically nobody in this entire thread mentioned the wives/children. Why? Because it's more of a priority in this day and age to sympathise with those of a particular sexual preference, regardless of how atrociously they behave?

You said that a lot of people share my opinions regarding the film, yet there doesn't seem to be many of them on this forum. I don't understand (regardless of who is or isn't the protaganist) how people can not feel bad for the families of the characters.

Honestly if you found out your boyfriend was having gay sex behind your back, wouldn't you have a somewhat different perspective? How would you feel? I guess you'd argue it's different these days and that there's no longer any justification for it. How about this:

What about if you found out your father was gay and that he only married your mother and had you in order to trick the rest of the world into thinking that he was heterosexual so that he could continue to have a sexual relationship with a man?

I realise I'm repeating myself but you've yet to say how you would feel being in that situation rather than say being in a cinema and watching a professionally produced film designed to conjur a produce reaction.

In reality rather than on the sparkling silver screen, they were horrible people.

They were obviously attracted to and capable of having sex with women. So if they chose to have a family and settle down, then why did they have to keep having sex with each other after they got married?

 

[AmorRoark]

Hate to break it to you but most of California wasn't super liberal in the 50s.. a lot of the state still isn't. Part of my point of mentioning that they were working-class men was to differentiate between that and a rich background. Truman Capote was rich for the majority of his life. He was lucky in that he made it big early in his writing career. I'm not sure his life would have been the same had he not 'made it'. From what we know neither character had much going for them beside their working-class background... which, jobs (unlike a writer or working for playwrights) weren't as kind to gay men.

I completely disagree with you about their lack of discreetness. They were very discreet from what I saw. It's not like they were having sex behind the rancher's barn. They had sex when they were camping out, like normal cowboys camp. It just so happened the rancher was spying on them randomly. That's not normal in ranching from what I know.

My point about the blacklisting is that there are only so many ranchers across the West. Cattle trails would go hundreds of miles picking up other cattle along the way. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for word to spread even with just a few ranchers finding out after their discreet behavior.

Yes, diseases have been around for a long time but I seriously doubt people were going around saying you could get the clap from a dude at that time in Wyoming. Even in the 1980s heterosexual people didn't know they could get AIDS and that was a much more 'enlightened' time in sexual education. How much sex ed do you think they got in schoolyards?

Just because people haven't spelled out that they feel badly for the families doesn't mean they don't. YES, I'd be upset if my boyfriend was having gay sex behind my back but he's not the main character of a plot in the 1950s involving gay cowboys. That's my point, I chose to view the film from the perspective that the film was made, not the minor characters or put myself in their wives shoes. I think it's beside the point.

Yes, I'd be upset if I found out that my dad only married my mom because of the situation outlined the movie. However, I'd probably be mostly happy that I was alive at all.

I think it's short-sighted to say the only reason either one of the characters married was to fool the rest of the world into thinking they were heterosexual so they could continue to have a male sexual relationship. Again, I think you're over-simplifying the issues in this movie. I think, at least Ennis, truly loved his wife. Maybe she wasn't his preferred sexual partner but it's clear he cared about her. He also loved his children.

I don't think they were horrible people. Horrible people are like, rapists and murders IMO. You're taking almost everything out of context of the film. That's fine if that's what you want to do but I don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jamshyd]

"Married to survive" is bullshit as far as I'm concerned, though. Can you explain how it was essential for either Jack or Ennis to marry women in order to survive?

That's pretty easy. Are you familiar with extended-family whispering in the background? Are you familiar with "village talk"? Are you familiar with father ashamed of their sons because they passed 25 years or so and haven't married yet? Are you familiar with how these things lead to people killing each other?

No you're not, and neither are most of your gay clients for that matter, because you both live in a society that has long since stopped doing these things. Again, I emphasize, not because it became more accepting of homosexuality, but rather because of the deterioration of the village life and the extended family.

The fact that the main characters of the film, despite being married to women and having young children to look after, fucked countless male sexual partners without using protection isn't relevant?

Protection? Cowboys? 1950s? LMAO.

It's to be expected? Expected of whom? All gay men in the 1950s? Or just in Wyoming?

I'm not sure I follow you.

No, you don't follow me. What was to be expected is a gay man who is married to a woman in order to avoid all the sanctions I listed above. As a matter of fact, IIRC (and I have HORRIBLE movie memory), such sanctions are even told as a story in that movie.

 

[L2R]

My reaction is mainly due to everyone saying how wonderful a love story this is and how they feel so much for the characters. I wouldn't be so openly judgemental of them if people weren't so quick to completely justify their behaviour and ignore the plight of the real victims of the story. Practically nobody in this entire thread mentioned the wives/children. Why? Because it's more of a priority in this day and age to sympathise with those of a particular sexual preference, regardless of how atrociously they behave?

i think you're jumping to conclusions with that one, mate. The wives were integral to the tragedy of the story. Both protagonists would be far less engaging without them. Just because the wives aren't specified in the comments do not mean that they are of lesser importance. Their plights are of paramount importance, but they aren't the central focus of the film.

You remind me of the reason i really disliked memento the first time i saw it. At teh time i had a strong aversion to all things "violent revenge". I just saw this unreasonable and unforgiving moron hellbent on keeping his pain alive by inflicting it on others. I hated the character for his drive to such ends.

Since then, I'd gotten over this shortsightedness (i'm not calling you shortsighted btw) and can enjoy the film for what it does, and even can emphathise with the main character.

I dunno, perhaps a little more compassion is needed to feel for these guys. People aren't all confident and strong willed. Not everyone is self assured. People have their faults, and part of the quality of this piece are the faults of the characters, many of which are completely out of their control. (nb: i am NOT implying homosexual tendancies are a fault, just their methods of engaging in them (fucking disclaimers piss me off))

 

[TheDeceased]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Okay. I was getting a little carried away I think.

AmorRoark you do raise a good point about them being working class men in comparison to Capote.. and maybe you're right - maybe it would have been impossible for them to find peace anywhere. But since they didn't (as you said) know what was out there, in terms of more open communities, they could have tried. 'Love will find a way,' as they say. It's not neccessarily supposed to be easy.

Hate to break it to you but most of California wasn't super liberal in the 50s

I didn't say that California was super liberal in the 50s.

That's pretty easy. Are you familiar with extended-family whispering in the background? Are you familiar with "village talk"? Are you familiar with father ashamed of their sons because they passed 25 years or so and haven't married yet? Are you familiar with how these things lead to people killing each other?

No you're not, and neither are most of your gay clients for that matter, because you both live in a society that has long since stopped doing these things. Again, I emphasize, not because it became more accepting of homosexuality, but rather because of the deterioration of the village life and the extended family.

You're asking questions and then answering them and making assumptions about the people I work with. I get the strong impression that my opinions are offending you, which is another good reason to stop this discussion. I didn't mean to offend.

For your information: Quite a lot of my clients are 50+ and come from small Australian country towns. They have told me stories of being oppressed and bashed for their sexual preferences, but they didn't marry women and conceive children in order to mask their true identities. Eventually they left to bigger cities (Sydney/Melbourne/Adelaide).

You remind me of the reason i really disliked memento the first time i saw it. At teh time i had a strong aversion to all things "violent revenge". I just saw this unreasonable and unforgiving moron hellbent on keeping his pain alive by inflicting it on others. I hated the character for his drive to such ends.

I liked 'Brokeback Mountain'. I thought it was, in every way, a very well made film. I just had a different interpretation than most.

I dunno, perhaps a little more compassion is needed to feel for these guys. People aren't all confident and strong willed. Not everyone is self assured. People have their faults, and part of the quality of this piece are the faults of the characters, many of which are completely out of their control.

This is where we disagree. I don't think you can say that adultery is out of someone's control. They didn't need to get married in the first place and after getting married and taking vows to be faithful to each other, they didn't need to go out and fuck each other. It's not beyond their control any more than it is beyond my control to cheat on my wife or beyond your control to cheat on your wife.

They didn't appear to attempt to control themselves whatsoever. Nor did they appear to feel ashamed/guilty for cheating.

Ennis, truly loved his wife

If that was the case he would have at least hesitated a bit.

i think you're jumping to conclusions with that one, mate

See the 'Tolerance Camp' episode of South Park.

[/TheDeceased's rant]

 

[L2R]

i find the adultery in this film far more plausable than most cliched "fight-fight-fight-sudenly make passionate love" ridiculous plot devices used oh so many too many times.

like i thought i tried to say earlier, i don't condone adultery, but this does not mean I couldn't empathise with these guys and be emotionally moved by the story.

 

[AmorRoark]

But since they didn't (as you said) know what was out there, in terms of more open communities, they could have tried. 'Love will find a way,' as they say. It's not neccessarily supposed to be easy.

Jack did try to persuade Ennis several times to move away from everything onto a ranch together... but only after their initial falling out. Ennis gave, basically, two reasons why he couldn't/wouldn't:

1. He said he wouldn't leave his children
2. He was still traumatized by seeing, as a child, a suspected homosexual tortured and killed, ultimately fearing that such a situation would lead them to a similar fate

I didn't say that California was super liberal in the 50s.

No, you said there were 'numerous places' in California during the 50s. I think the obvious assumption by your comment would be that some of these towns would have been accepting to openly gay men. I don't know which cities you'd be talking about, and it seems, neither do you thus invalidating your there are other places in California comment. It's understandable that you might not know the geographical realities of the 1950s across the U.S. as you don't live here, but, it does make it difficult for you to back up what you're saying on this point.

They didn't appear to attempt to control themselves whatsoever. Nor did they appear to feel ashamed/guilty for cheating....

If that was the case he would have at least hesitated a bit.

He did hesitate more than a bit. I'm not trying to belabor the point but I really think you're not remembering the film very well. There is an off chance that you interpreted their acting differently than me but their shame was seriously obvious to me. Ennis actively distanced himself from Jack like, I don't know, 4 times in total throughout the film? I'm sure, considering you're suppose to believe they're 100% in love, this was very difficult. I mean, they were apart for over 4 years after their initial love-making. Even after they reunited their meetings were fairly infrequent and Ennis' shame/guilt/confusion is painfully clear.

 

[Jamshyd]

You're asking questions and then answering them and making assumptions about the people I work with. I get the strong impression that my opinions are offending you, which is another good reason to stop this discussion. I didn't mean to offend.

No offense taken.

It's just that I think Brokeback Mountain has a lot of faults, but the one you point out simple isn't one of them because it isn't even an issue.

 

[TheDeceased]

He did hesitate more than a bit.

I seem to remember them jumping at each other just outside the house he shared with his wife and her seeing them. I don't have a crystal clear memory of the film, but I guess his subtle facial expressions isn't enough hesitation for me to justify his adultery.

it isn't even an issue.

I find that absolutely incomprehensible, but as AmorRoark said we aren't going to agree.

 

[L2R]

i think we should ask alasdairm

 

[AmorRoark]

I seem to remember them jumping at each other just outside the house he shared with his wife and her seeing them. I don't have a crystal clear memory of the film, but I guess his subtle facial expressions isn't enough hesitation for me to justify his adultery.

Yes, you were totally right about them jumping at each other and kissing outside his house. Sorry, I had forgotten that part. It does seem severely out of character for him to do so IMO. But yeah, that wasn't subtle at all. I feel like the film (novel?) only did it as an easy way for Ennis' wife to see his true intentions in his relationship with Jack.