The End of Brokeback Mountain (Massive Spoilers)- Page 8

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:36am

"How can anyone who's seen the final minutes of the movie (Ennis left hollow by the knowledge that he will never see and touch and hold Jack again) doubt that it was love of the most profound and powerful kind?"

Some people wouldn't know real love if slithered up and bit them on the ass.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:10am

Because some of us were too pissed off by the hetero-ed ending...you know...'Daddy, come to my wedding!' 'Uh...mmmm...naw...ooooh...well.....mmmmmmmk.' Let's celebrate the hetero love and stare longingly at a piece of fabric and remember what we can't have because of THEM.

I'm so f*cking sick of being considered any kind of victim.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:15am

Oh. Thank. YOU. RobbieJ.

I'm so intrigued by Steven Stanley (reminds me of Humboldt Humboldt in some way!) and Luscious talking about these scenes from a movie as if they are a documentary. So many things took me OUT of the world of the movie that I can't even say I felt it depicted real love. But super-enthusiastic fans like Steve and Lusc seem to treat the whole thing as if it were "real" love.

I LOVE movies that make me think they're real. BBM wasn't one of them by a long shot.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 11:15 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:18am

I think I posted this somewhere else, but for argument's sake, I'll post it again; I was talking to a friend about this movie, and she said she's been hearing that it's a gay movie made for straight audiences, because of that, Robbie. Because the way it ends isn't happy, and shows what can't be had because of societal framework. Ennis stares longingly at that piece of fabric, remembering what he couldn't have -- and now can never have -- because of what's not allowed. Is it victimization, or is it what the movie has to say? I think that if you care about these characters, and you're rooting for the love story, no matter who you are, that's what you might get out of it -- something will click that the victimization and the prevention, fear, etc, need to stop. In the same vein, if Jack had lived and they rode off into the sunset, it could just as easily be a happy gay date movie -- but the ending is what makes it powerful enough to say something that wouldn't be said that way.

I sort of thought that was separate from the wedding issue, though. I mean, she IS his daughter, and he's been trying to balance things and be a good father, if unsuccessfully. So now he's going to do something right and be there, at his daughter's wedding. I think that part is about how he's isolated himself for all of this time, and now he's going to try to change that. More in the character than in the big picture, maybe?

I don't know. Perhaps it depends on which side of the fence you stand. My pocket change.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 11:18 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:19am

A "hetero-ed" ending would have been if Ennis had married another woman.

Would you REALLY have preferred that the story end with Ennis's daughter asking him to attend her same-sex committment ceremony?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:32am

Yeah, come on RobbieJ, I respect your reservations, but please try to consider the bigger picture. Gay people are parents, good ones, and we live in a country that is increasingly trying to keep them from that. Look at Florida. And personally, having watched close friends fight -- FIGHT to adopt, I think seeing Ennis show his love for his daughter in key moments doesn't "hetero-ize" the film, or him--it expands and deepends our view of how loving, in the truly inclusive sense, gay men are. And while we're tracking the arc: Ennis strongly rejects Cassie, his last "hetero" option. The scene in the coffee shop shows you that no woman will ever replace Jack. I don't see how you can call that a hetero ending. To me, he isn't a victim. He's a man whose wrong choices -- very era and geography specific (Wyoming 63 - 83) -- leave him alone. But I think the film will make people think about NOT making similar wrong choices. It in no way suggests that Ennis' are a healthy option.

As for fictional characters and the messages they send: I guess I'll take Ennis over the millenial Will Truman, who trashes the gay excesses of his deep-as-a-teaspoon step-n fetchit sidekick while still clinging to a straight woman for emotional support.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 11:32 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:37am

Exactly, Auggie; maybe less hetero would have been not to have Jack die at all, but... I can't imagine having the movie be nearly as affecting and powerful if they had just lived happily ever after.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:28pm

When I say 'hetero-ed' the ending, it's more of what luvtheemcee was pointing to...how it's hetero-ed for the audience...not for the character of Ennis. How Ennis can finally make a right choice, but that choice involves the very hetero institution of marriage. And, frankly, I can't get behind the 'But gays ARE good parents' argument when he's gone her entire life without being available to her in any real and meaningful way. Of course gay men and women are good parents...and those images must be shown. But don't you think those images should include out gay people who are honest with their children about who they are. Isn't that the truly subversive way to go?

Would I have wanted him to go to her same-sex union? No...but it might have been interesting for her to come out to him, without a whole lot of angst (though, admittedly, in '83, that's probably not in the realm of possibility). And though it would be veering far off from the original story, what if Ennis wanted to see Jack again, but Jack had somehow managed to get that ranch and be with David Harbour (is that who that was?), leaving Ennis alone, but Jack a realized gay man?

I understand the adverse reaction to the minstrels we've had to put up with as of late, but are the images in BBM really any better? You have 2 choices according to BBM; you're either beaten to death if you go after what you want or you end up alone, suffering in silence. So really, what does this movie do? We're still the same figures of pathos that we were in the 80's and 90's during the AIDS crisis. What are we really thankful for from BBM? That we're being portrayed as 'butch' finally? That we're engendering straight people's pity?

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 12:28 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:35pm

i haven't even seen the movie, robbie, what with me out in the sticks, but i have to tell you that i feel sorry for you.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:36pm

You know it's bad when someone in Ohio pities you!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:55pm

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Robbie, I'll pity you too.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:56pm

you cut deep, robbie. can you put on a few pounds?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:03pm

I accept our civil impasse, though I see and do understand all your relevant points, Robbie. I was sneering at this film before it was ever released for its marketing plan to cozy up to hetero audiences -- to provide them with butch hunks to swoon over and finally pity.

But I'm not sure pity is the emotion it leaves most people with To my surprise, I think the film is perhaps ultimately more subversive than you do, and not just because it powerfully takes us away from portraying gay people as what (my earlier post) the Times called "...accessories for straight people..." I don't tout the film for its celebration of butchness, though we all know gay culture is obsessed with butchness.

I think its power, witnessed by to date anecdoctal evidence, is in its depiction of love as a transcendent defining trait.

So much of the national debate about all things gay is about "lifestyle" rather than a basic component of human experience: freedom to love and be loved. The film -- to me, eloquently, accessibly, via a tragic arc -- suggests that human beings, deprived of that freedom, are denied their very identity. There is no "lifestyle" on the planet that should ever have that core component of humanity legislated against, because it's of the soul. As the poster says, "a force of nature" (pretty subversive, that--but I'm an old quasi hippie with the 60s in my rearview mirror.) And Pollyanna that I am, I believe there are self-absorbed, narrow straight people in America who may "get it" only if pushed via the histrionics of a story well told to recognize the truly tragic loss in life when real love is denied.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 01:03 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:19pm

And I agree with you in principle, Robbie. I have made similar arguments against other creative endeavors in the past.

In this case, I just think those frequently valid arguments are outweighed by the artistic integrity of both the short story and the film and the cultural impact the film is having.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:19pm

Well...if the movie does raise the level of discussion about what it is to be gay in this country to a more sophisticated level, then I'll cheer that accomplishment, no matter what I feel about the movie. I would never deny anyone their powerful positive reactions to the film just as you, Auggie, have not denied my powerful negative reaction to the film (and, perhaps, when time has passed and some of the hype has abated, I'll be able to reasses the film). I think one of the problems I'm having with the discussion is the whole 'butch' factor. It's meant to combat the idea that the sissy...the pink-faced step'n fetchit is feminine and therefore (and here's where homophobia and misogyny go hand in hand) weak. So here we have two butch cowboys who are supposed to combat that image and it turns out they are far weaker than the Jack's of the world. Stand them next to the towering Prior from ANGELS and they pale in comparison. So, in the end, we're still left with weak images of gay men on the screen.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 2:38pm

Would I have wanted him to go to her same-sex union? No...but it might have been interesting for her to come out to him, without a whole lot of angst (though, admittedly, in '83, that's probably not in the realm of possibility). And though it would be veering far off from the original story, what if Ennis wanted to see Jack again, but Jack had somehow managed to get that ranch and be with David Harbour (is that who that was?), leaving Ennis alone, but Jack a realized gay man?

That sounds like an infomercial produced by PFLAG, with an agenda that's detrimental to the piece's artistic worth.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 02:38 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 2:56pm

And your point is?

In the end, this is not even so much about BBM, but about the culture we live in. I, like, I dare say, many here, pinned a whole lotta hopes onto this film. For some, those hopes were met. For me, not quite. The thing that's most disappointing is that here was this movie that was to shatter stereotypes, but ended up (in my mind) reinforcing others. I'll never forget, as a child, overhearing my mom, a rather progressive woman when it comes to this subject, say that she feels bad for gay people because it seems like such a lonely life. And this movie reinforces that particular stereotype. It just seems such like such a retro vision of a gay experience. Not that it's not based in truth. But let's not kid ourselves that this film is our saviour. It's the start of a very long discussion.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 3:13pm

"a retro vision of a gay experience"

The story takes place in 1963!!!!!!!

In Wyoming!!!!!!

This isn't about YOU, Robbie!

It's about two closeted men in the West before Stonewall!!!!

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 03:13 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 3:35pm

i would much rather have seen robbie than jake.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 3:42pm

Robbie--you KNOW i love you. You can star in a contemporary version of the story: Brokeback Condo

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:19pm

Joey, girl...don't blow a gasket...am I gonna have to provide some relief at Equinox???

My problem isn't exploring these men's lives as a period piece. Of course it's a period piece. And I don't, in the end, have a problem with the movie in and of itself (at least politically...I do have issues with the fact that it read too schematic to me to really register). I just can't get on the bandwagon that this is some huge step forward from the sissies and faggots that people are taking to task. It still relegates gay men as people for whom to feel bad...at least (and I can't believe this still needs to be said) in my own opinion.

I guess the real problem is that our stories...our true stories as gay men and women throughout history, have not made it's way into the fabric of our storytelling. So BBM in relief to only the 'fabulous accessories' of late seems like a step forward. And if the discussion continues and more films are made that allow different gay voices, then I'll of course give credit to this film. I hope that's the way it goes.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:21pm

How Ennis can finally make a right choice, but that choice involves the very hetero institution of marriage.

But is it about heterosexual marriage, or is it about doing right by his child?

I guess you could read it either way, really.

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:24pm

^^^ What robbie said!

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:36pm

Aw Jeez...now we get into a whole OTHER discussion. As for the specifics in the story...yes...he does right by the child. And good for him. It's obviously a move towards something instead of a retreat. But now we get into the whole meta-message of it all, which takes into account not just the specifics of the story, but how those specifics play themselves out in our time and our place and our culture and how this simple act can be read in juxtaposition to all other mainstream representations of gay life. Because we have, at best, been relegated to a supporting role in the national consciousness, each attempt at finding a footing in the mainstream will be dissected by many (including me, obviously). So this simple plot point becomes about something more. It can say that he can move forward, but that moving forward is bound up in the hetero institution of marriage...an instituion which, of course, we can not participate in the country (most of us). So a simple act of kindness between characters in a movie can take on a different (and rather mixed) message than what might be intended on the part of the artists involved.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:39pm

No, I agree -- one act can be extrapolated and interpreted in a million ways. That's why I'm not contesting you on it, but rather saying it simply depends on where you stand.