Bareback Mountain- Page 15

[badreligion]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:36am

Emcee is this film takes place in the sixites and gay rights have come a far way since then. Hence, this is not about current modern gay rights. There are many men who are married who have left their wives and have lived as an open and proud gay couple. As far as the queer issue i believe you are being way too simplistic in the heterosexual view of sexuality that you are either gay straight or bi, there is a fluidity of sexuality that many adhere to and have affairs and relations with the same sex without identifing themselves with a label. Who are we to say about someone elses self-proclaimed identity regarding sexuality, hence the term queer become popular as a non-deragortory term because the simplicity of gay bi straight just doesn't cover it, ask Whiteboy Spice about it.

[vbplayer]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:39am

luvtheEmcee. I am in complete agreement with you.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:39am

First of all, the newsstories all over the country, the film being kicked out of cities, the hatred on message boards from homophobes and bigots has made this film extremely political. And, if you think Munich is not political, you must be on some nice pills---please share.

Second of all, Lucious and emcee have already laid out some examples of what effect this film is having. And art is political. Even benign art is likely political, if subtle. This film covers the issue of homophobia and how it destroys lives. Sure, there are universal elements, but in this Constitutional Amendment passing, gay bashing era and time of a Gay Civil Rights Movement, a film like this IS political by choosing to cover the starcrossed lovers who are same sex.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:43am

Whoa, badrelgion.

Of course it goes without saying that it's a period piece -- but honestly, because something is period hardly makes it obsolete. The past doesn't just like... evaporate. Things have changed, but I think it's very silly to think that what happened -- in a much larger historical scope than just about gay rights -- is moot because things are better now. Ugly things in the past don't just up and go away, and a better current situation does not invalidate the importance of the past. Things aren't only important when they address modern standings.

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say on the simple, so-loathed ground of "you're straight, you don't get it." I'm saying that Jack and Ennis deny the label because they have to deny who they are and they have to live lies. I'm not even going to touch which label is proper for what usage; that's not at all what I'm saying. You addressed the fact that the characterse say they aren't queer, and I am quite simply posing the notion that given *their* circumstances, they do it for the above-stated reasons. You said yourself that this is a historical piece. Don't project what's what NOW on them, especially if you feel that the past is moot.

Are you saying that if the characters labeled themselves as queer or gay or bisexual or whatever that *then* it would be a more clear-cut gay advocacy, versus just a story about two guys who happen to fall in love?

I suppose this all falls into the category of that argument about the necesity of the label and the need to be set aside versus the idea that love is love, no matter what sort. That's something I'm not going to get into.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 12:43 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:46am

The events and characters of this film could have taken place in 2006 anywhere in this country but especially in rural America. If you have read this thread, you would already know that that point has been covered.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:51am

Kringas, are you here? You'll be proud. As he so enjoyed my once saying before:

Read, people!

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:54am

Between my blog and the seemingly endless amount of threads I've been following over on BWW, I may never again write about anything but Brokeback Mountain. I actually wrote this post over there, but it fits in with this conversation.

This movie has certainly touched a lot of people, I'll give you that. People are talking. Some I've talked to just seem so wounded that someone couldn't like this movie. Someone like me, that is.

Namo commented that the film is like a Rorschach test, and people are bringing their own baggage to it and seeing what they want to see. I think that this is pretty on the mark. Even all the praise I've heard heaped on the film contradicts itself at times. I'm not invalidating anyone's experience with this film, mind you. It's not that much fun standing off to the side, while everyone else is at the party to which you weren't invited.

It should be noted that for much of my life, many people have been able to spot on sight that I'm gay. I'm not sure why that is. I could ruminate on effeminate men and stereotypes, but I've done that before and that's not what this is about. For whatever reason, lots of people have been able to pick me out of a bright pink lineup and I'm fine with that. It's a relief, I suppose. To some degree, it has prevented me from ever having to seriously consider a life in the closet.

Seriously, no one was ever shocked when I came out to them. I don't even recall that many raised eyebrows.

I have a clear memory of being about seven years old, in which my hysterical mother shrieked to me that I was a "goddamned sissy."

I lost my best friend in seventh grade (which, in retrospect was on my part a crush of epic proportions) because he was not "friends with fags."

In ninth grade, I spent the second semester being tormented daily by another student who would scream various gay epithets at me. This student and I had no classes together, had never even gone to the same school together before that year. In fact, I never once spoke a word to him. Ever.

Sure, these aren't the most horrible things that could have happened to me because of my sexuality, though I was once chased from a Denny's because someone in our party (friend of a friend of a friend) found out I was gay and was disgusted that he'd shared some vodka with me earlier that night. I was nineteen and scared ****less. I was sprinted away before the guy was able to make good on his promise to kill me, but it shook me up pretty badly then.

I was called "gay" long before I actually knew what the word meant. My coming out caused displeasure to some, but still came as no surprise to anyone. I pretended to be Evita at the age of seven, for Christ's sake. The jig, if ever down, was long up.

Believe me, I'm glad it worked out that way. I'm glad I never got to really seriously consider staying in the closet longer or, god forbid, forever. I didn't have to find reasons, whether they be familial or financial, to hide my light under a bushel. I didn't have to worry that eventually this person or that person would find out, because they generally knew before I did. As Janis sang, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

I realize people stay in the closet for all sorts of reasons. They may lose their families. Christ might frown upon them. Perhaps it would put their lives in danger. I feel for these people. I pity these people.

I have no advice to offer them. I don't judge them. I hope they can live with their choices, and I hope the fallout of those choices on those around them is minimal.

In the context of the big gay movie that's sweeping the nation, I can understand their choices. It's just that my choices (or rather, my lack thereof) cause this issue to really strike a nerve within me.

It's not that Brokeback Mountain didn't make me think. I'm just not thinking what everyone else is.

One last thing - Let's not forget this thread is called "Bareback Mountain," for heaven's sake. It's gotten waaaay too serious around here for a thread with such a title.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 12:54 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:00am

One last thing - Let's not forget this thread is called "Bareback Mountain," for heaven's sake. It's gotten waaaay too serious around here for a thread with such a title.

That's what we call irony, silly.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:00 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:02am

I think this is worth repeating:

This film can be critiqued in 3 ways:

1. one's personal experiences with the film based on their gay baggage or expectations. This is likely the same impression one has of the source material--the short story.

2. the artistic merit of the film without any baggage of the issues dealt with

3. the political impact of the film---issue films are going to spark either small or huge on the landscape.

[badreligion]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:13am

You're telling me to read: I've said this film was not made for the advancement of Gay Rights. That is how I started my post. And Emcee when did I say that the past was moot? And Jrb when did I say Munich wasn't poliical. Brokeback took the subtext of cowboy movies that were considered homoerotic and turned it into the text. There are plenty of OTHER gay films that deal directly with the advancement of Gay Rights and the issues of homophobia. In 1968 Warhol's Lonesome Cowboys and Midnight Cowboy cemented this motif in popular imagination and lifted a subculture to the surface. This film has been banned in one theatre in Utah and a few in West Virginia, that is hardly what I call a travesty and honestly alot less than expected. Hell you can go see this film in many cities at the Multiplex at the Mall. Jrb you avoid the question by saying its been discussed, that is the easiest scapegoat there is. It is obvious to me that the statements of Emcee and Jrb come from a lack of viewing enough queer cinema on a spectrum histrorically and are simply jumping on the bandwagon of the most talked about queer film of this year. Emcee, ever see a Gregg Araki movie? Todd Haynes? Tom Kalin? Rose Troche? Lisa Cholodenko? Hell did you see Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:16am

No, we've already had this debate and aren't up for yet another repetition of it. Thus, if you want elaboration--check out the rest of this thread. Sorry, but you are late to the party.

And, ultimately, we are going to have to agree to disagree. And if you think you are going to play the "I'm right and you are wrong game", you can play a solitaire version of it right after kissing my ***.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:16 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:18am

"Read" as in take a few minutes and read through the thread -- jrb said that a lot of this has been discussed before.

this film takes place in the sixites and gay rights have come a far way since then. Hence, this is not about current modern gay rights.

You imply that the issues dealt with in Brokeback are less important because they are in the past, and not representative of the current situation.

You know BBM came from a BOOK, right? It's a movie based on a novella before it's a response to underlying homoerotica in cowboy movies.

Don't tell me I'm jumping on a bandwagon. To dumb down what this movie made me feel to "oh, you're simply jumping on the bandwagon" -- to dumb it down to some simple, high-school-like desire to get in with the cool kids -- is totally, totally uncalled for, and really not your place. I'm a big girl. I make up my own mind. Don't insult my response to this film like that; I don't care if you didn't feel the same way, it gives you no right whatsoever to do so. Why does the discussion of a film have to come down to personal strikes? Come on now.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:18 AM

[badreligion]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:19am

Again, Jrb explain what exactly is the "political" impact of Brokeback Mountain, in your words. What do YOU have to say about the "political" impact of this film.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:22am

Erm, he... did.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:23am

I have to side a bit with Badreligion here -- there's very little in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN that makes it an explicitly political film. Of course, that does not mean it doesn't spark political debate, and it's clear that the film supports the expression of love between Jack and Ennis. But BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN doesn't really stand on a soapbox and scream out some pointed sociopolitical message (and that's what I like about the film -- certainly this quality will help it age well).

Of course the conflict presented in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN still exists today, but the film doesn't turn to the audience and whisper, nothing has changed in America. The audience gouges that for themselves.

I love Ang Lee's THE WEDDING BANQUET. It's like a movie about my own family (but with less screaming and more hilarity!).

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:23 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:24am

omg--I HAVE waxed eloquent on and on and on ALL in my own words and thoughts. I am NOT going to repeat myself here because you are too lazy to read this thread and the Gene Shalit thread.

Furthermore, quit insulting our validity of opinion and ideas just because you are unable to agree or argue effectively your own opinion.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:25am

Well, that's an important point, BlueWizard -- even if the film itself is not inherently *that* political, it's having political ramifications. But I don't know that badreligion is hitting on that much, though.

jrb, you should just copy and paste your old posts. You can be like a broken record, but with less effort.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:25 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:26am

Additionally, it's ridiculous, badreligion, that you are all up emcee's ass and mine when we are SUPPORTING this film that you love. And our stance on its political impact takes NOTHING away from the film. It only adds.

Take it out on those who hate the film.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:28am

OR, you could all read my new blog!! **shameless plug**

http://ramblingcorner.blogspot.com/

Remember to leave a comment if you like what you see/read.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:29am

Ooh. That is quite a spiffy blog!

[badreligion]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:31am

Emcee and Jrb is avoid the main question of how this film is about the advancement of Gay Rights and also avoid the topic of watching other queer films. Jrb you haven't been able to argue at all and you are critcizing me about arguing effectively, by claiming that its been discussed and to read the thread, I HAVE you brat and you have yet to make a valid point of how this film is "political" = because of homophobia, that makes it political, you and emcee have ALOT to learn about films, not one mention of the statements I made of Warhol or Midnight Cowboy or any of the other directors that have directly dealt with gay issues and have advanced the gay rights movement. No instead insults and Emcee having a breakdown about her "feelings" about the film. Both of your ages are showing and that is not a good thing.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:31am

Thank you. Notice how the title font colour matches my photo!

Please bookmark so you can continue enjoying the hilarity.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:35am

I answered your question, badreligion. Are you even reading my posts?

And I still stand by the fact that you really have no place to be telling me I'm just jumping on a bandwagon. I'm hardly that stupid, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the movie. It looks to me like you can't find enough to back up what you're saying, or something, so you turn to invalidating our opinions with sh*t like that. Seriously, CHEAP. SHOT. Subsituting personal slams for legit discourse says a lot for your maturity. The irony coats so thickly here....

I like the pictures, BW. I hardly have the patience to get a blog because I don't know how to make them look nice.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:35 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:36am

You can knock off the personal insults, which are not justified or called for. YOUR immaturity is showing through.

I HAVE stated in detail what I think and if it isn't good enough for you--oh well. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, you petulant child.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:37am

me-ow.