Bareback Mountain- Page 4

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 12:28pm

Well...honestly...I've made some of these very points in other threads...though the bit about the photographic negative is new and I'm proud of that one.

And you're right about there being many places in America that are still obscenely intolerant. But, back in the day (10 years ago), I did a Theatreworks tour and found myself in rural North Carolina...really rural. There, at the community center in which we were performing, I met a lesbian woman who helped with costumes. She had a partner and it was widely known and pretty accepted in the community. I was FASCINATED by this. They managed to forge a life for themselves, not by leaving and finding refuge in a big city, but by staying put. I couldn't believe (which show's just how narrow-minded I was in 1996). So...in the end, the truly subversive story (to me) is the story of how people manage to make a life for themselves honestly in these areas...not how they're torn apart by their circumstances.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 12:47pm

Kringas --- one thing you keep bringing up that seems to be your primary objection to the film is that you're being "forced" to accept it as brilliant or Oscar-worthy.


Well, I was trying to make that point, but I was accused of a dick in the process.

Of course it's not the film doing this. It's the fact that I can't escape BM and someone in person or on this board or coming up to me at work and trying to tell me how I missed its message and how it's the most important movie of my lifetime and I'm too much of a dick or too heartless or too whatever to realize that.

This is the second movie in a short time (Rent being the other) in which I find myself and others I know locked in a circular argument. In both cases I wholeheartedly agree that I'm brining my own big bag of BS to the table, but that's not the only reason I didn't care for these movies.

The brouhaha aside, I still thought the movie was dull. I thought all that female talent was wasted on thankless roles. I didn't find it offensive or revolutionary, I simply find it uninspired and slow, much like I felt about Rent.

And with this, I think I'm withdrawing from this conversation. In the interest of trying to be clever, I'm afraid that perhaps at times I was a little dick-y, and I really didn't mean to be. I don't get why this movie has touched so many people, and I'm sure those same people don't get why it didn't touch me. No amount of talking back and forth about it is going to make either side sway very much, and I respect too many of the people posting about this too much to have an argument in which I'm quickly losing interest and have very little investment.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 12:47 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 12:56pm

The tough thing about these circular conversations (and all circular conversations) is that the burden of proof, if you will, is on the person who had a negative reaction. And I guess it always is. People can simply say, 'I saw the love. I was moved,' and it's taken at it's own value. But any dissent must be delivered in very specific detail...and sometimes analysis like that takes some time. And any dissent will be, of course, accused of having it's own baggage (to which I fully admit). But so does any appreciation. People like it for many reasons...and the conversations here prove that it's more than just a movie to some people. It's deeply personal. So any flip remark will be met with an accusation of 'dick'. I understand it...but it makes it tough to continue the conversation.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:00pm

That sort of story would be a VERY good one to make into a film. The only problem these days is, who would watch it? We would.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:03pm

But wait...so what you're saying is our stories have to have a tragic element in it for straight people to want to watch? Why? So that they can, in the end, still feel that kind of shallow tolerance of, 'See...don't hate gays. They're people, too! And I'm glad I'm not one of the.'?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:09pm

No, I think it has to do with universality. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN has heartache and loss that anyone can identify with, gay or straight; it has the kind of catharsis found in all tragedies, which makes them so enjoyable to watch. A plot about two farmhands finding happiness and moving into their own place, feeding their own chickens and dealing with the occasional homophobe -- that's a story to be interpreted from afar.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 01:09 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:13pm

OK, then. So what's the recipe for the gay romance that doesn't end tragically, but will still have wide appeal?

Cause if there isn't one, we're f*cked seven ways to Sunday.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:27pm

I think TRICK could have had widespread appeal; the premise of two people zigzagging across Manhattan looking for a place to get off is hilarious, and doesn't even rely on its two romantic leads being men. But it was never marketed outside the gay community.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:45pm

"No, I think it has to do with universality. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN has heartache and loss that anyone can identify with..."

See, these are the sort of broad brush stroke statements that are so irksome. I didn't identify with any of the heartache and loss that you perceived and leads you to state this movie is "universal," and believe you me girlfriends, I've had plenty of heartache and loss. Other people I know didn't identify with it, either.

What's particularly interesting to me is that when I argue about the movie, people always tell me, "Well, it's very faithful to the short story; it's just the specific story of these two cowboys it's not meant to be a grand over-reaching statement." But then, I hear how it's "universal," which contradicts the "specficity" argument.

I think in all the brouhaha that came after Robbie invoked Schindler's List the one thing that the people who dismissed his comparison missed is the point: were Jewish movie-goers told how they should respond to it, the correct way to respond to it? Were those who didn't care for the film dismissed as being against Jewish people or Holocaust deniers? Seriously, why does Kringas get called a dick for not reacting the way certain people feel he "should" respond to the movie but BobbyBubby doesn't get called out for saying, "But since most gay men (not all, but a lot) nowadays only care about the gym, pnp, and mojitos....?" I mean, come ON. You're either "for" Brokeback Mountain or you're an urban gay stereotype?

What. EVER.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 01:45 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:46pm

I also think it suffered from Nobody-itis. I mean...Tori Spelling was the big star. It just felt indie and niche...but I agree...the premise could easily have crossed over, even if the end product couldn't.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 2:09pm

But then, I hear how it's "universal," which contradicts the "specficity" argument.

You're right; I'm the one who played both "universal" and "specificity" cards. But I still think the reasoning holds: the film is quite particular about its period setting and characters, and it's hard to take the circumstances under which they live and apply it to all gays and lesbians. However, I think the emotions the characters feel here are identifiable; what's obvious from the box office revenues is that straight audiences are connecting to this story, and I don't think it's a matter of pity ("I love a movie about sad, pathetic gay cowboys!"). They see themselves in these gay men, and I think that is very encouraging.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 2:26pm

"They see themselves in these gay men, and I think that is very encouraging." What makes you really think that? Just because the movie has sold tickets to straight people doesn't necessarily mean you can make the leap to them seeing themselves in these two characters, if you ask me.

It's really people who are not of the dominant culture (like the gays, like the dykes, like the peoples of color) who have to learn to "see them/ourselves" in representations of mainstream story-telling. I don't think people who enjoy the benefits and privleges of being in the dominant culture particularly have a frame of reference that encourages them to identify with "otherness" in any form of representation.

I'm just saying.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:01pm

There's a difference between a dramatic love story (they hardly ever end happily, straight or gay) and a romantic comedy. If you're looking for a gay romantic comedy with a happy ending, BROKEBACK isn't it. Maybe next year. The fact that BROKEBACK is a formulaic "great American love story" that happens to be about two men is what makes it revolutionary. It's not WHAT it has to say about being gay, or HOW it says it, but that it was made, released, and is being marketed to (and largely embraced by) a mainstream audience. That, accompanied by the fact that it's a well-crafted film by a respected director with an intelligent script and first-rate performances by talented actors, makes it a triumph and cause for celebration. And celebrate I will, on the first Sunday in March, when it makes movie history by walking away with the Best Picture Oscar. This is one gay man who will be awash in tears and pride!

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:01 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:09pm

I don't doubt that you're sincere in that post. But to me it just paints a picture of a fellow who has way, way overidentified with a movie and who is way, way overinvested in it.

"[W]hen it makes movie history by walking away with the Best Picture Oscar. This is one gay man who will be awash in tears and pride!"

You'd think you made the movie.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:12pm

Fine. My silence didn't last long.

It's not WHAT it has to say about being gay, or HOW it says it, but that it was made, released, and is being marketed to (and largely embraced by) a mainstream audience.

If what it says or how it says it is unimportant, then this film is no different than Philadelphia. Or The Boys in the Band, for that matter.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:13pm

I'm getting confused at this point.

'It's not WHAT it has to say about being gay, or HOW it says it, but that it was made, released, and is being marketed to (and largely embraced by) a mainstream audience.'

The same EXACT things can be said about WILL & GRACE and QUEER EYE...two entertainments that have recently, in light of the supposed machismo on display in BBM, have been villified by many on this board.

Several of us have pointed out concerns we have with the portrayl of love (or the lack thereof) in the film and the fact that someone is 'butch' doesn't necessarily make him a strong man. And we're called 'hearless'. And the histrionics that are being displayed by some over how much the feel and how much they relate are being put in direct relief to that very 'heartlessness' of which we are accused.

And YES...I still find it a bit odd that not one major player in the making of this film is an openly gay man or woman (unless there's an openly gay producer I don't know about...which is possible). I just can't partake in the celebration when it's a bunch of straight people making this film (and patting each other on the back), when I feel, in the end, they didn't really get it completely right.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:13 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:17pm

Namo... you appear equally overinvested in tearing it apart and ridiculing anyone who admires it.

You'd think you worked for a competing studio.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:17 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:18pm

I think we're actually getting at something again here. Many people I love and care for LOVED this movie. But Robbie, you just hit on something that has been bugging me from the beginning. It seems to me that the people who are going way overboard are just so overly grateful to be given these crumbs. I mean crying tears of pride come Oscar night because the dominant culture gave them a glimpse into the straight imagination's fantasies of what macho gay men are like?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:21pm

when i feel, in the end, they didn't really get it completely right.

i take it you feel this deeply?

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:21 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:21pm

Again, Luscious, you're falling into the particulary American trap of seeing everything from the team mentality. "You're either with us or ag'in' us."

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:21pm

If I'm allowed be called heartless, then I don't feel bad about saying this.

There's the whole 'No fats, no fems' aspect that my play into some of the adoration. I can't help but feel that some (certainly not all) are reacting to the mere fact that these heartthrobs are playing hyper-masculine gays...something many of us would like to be or have (I've been guilty of it, too).

ETA: I've felt MANY things...very deeply.

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:21 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:25pm

That irks me too, though, because the movie even gets the hyper-masculinity wrong. As a loner and a voyeur, I've managed to penetrate (so to speak) a lot of these hyper-masculine homo-erotic circles, and it's NOTHING like what Annie Prioux or Ang Lee imagine it to be.

"[P]laying hyper-masculine gays" is ALL I saw on the screen. I guess my major disappointment was that I wasn't watching the actors being hyper-masculine gays on screen.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:29pm

"Again, Luscious, you're falling into the particulary American trap of seeing everything from the team mentality. "You're either with us or ag'in' us."

No Namo... that's what you're doing.

And please don't quote me out of context.

"It's not WHAT it has to say about being gay, or HOW it says it ***THAT MAKES IT REVOLUTIONARY***, but that it was made, released, and is being marketed to (and largely embraced by) a mainstream audience. ***OF WHICH I CONSIDER MYSELF PART OF***

"That, accompanied by the fact that it's a well-crafted film by a respected director with an intelligent script and first-rate performances by talented actors, makes it a triumph and cause for celebration."

Updated On: 1/7/06 at 03:29 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:31pm

It wasn't a quote out of context...at all. Your appraisal of the film (your opinion) was an afterthought. As if that's not the most important aspect of the film.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 3:33pm

"No Namo... that's what you're doing."

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? No it's not, that's what you're doing.

Christ, Luscious, please try to do more to counterbalance my points that just saying them back to me.

I think it's great that you're really really happy that a group of presumably heterosexual people combined their talents to create their fantasy of what life is like for closeted gay men [I would like to reiterate, they got the sex 100% COMPLETELY wrong] and that if it takes home the Academy Award you, for some unclear reason, will be crying and proud.