Bareback Mountain — Page 4

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.

---

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.

---

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.'?

---

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.

---

"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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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

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

"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

"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.

---