I just watched Brokeback Mountain and can't tell if they're saying Jack died from a homophobic assault that police are calling a horrific tire accident or if Heath Ledger's character just was afraid that's what it was.
I mean was it supposed to be open to interpretation or was there a clear answer in the film that I missed?
Otherwise, very good, very emotional film.
I interpreted it as Jack being killed in a hate crime. Can't say that I'm interpreting it correctly, but considering that he was fairly careless in hiding his sexuality from the people around him, I thought it fairly likely that he would die like that.
Mina.
If I remember correctly from the book it was a hate crime, yes.
I read the novelette by Annie Proulx and in that yes it was a hate crime. The movie was a great interpretation of the book and was a truly beautiful love story albeit an extremely tragic one. Both the leads turned in superb performances and the world is poorer without Heath Ledger that's for sure.
I'm not much for emotions any more and I haven't seen the film. But my guess would be HATE CRIME. After all, look at the world we live in and the way it's been for thousands of years. Haters are much like thieves, looking for their next score. Unfortunately they take the most precious and valuable thing a person could ever have. Their Life
It was a good film, my partner at the time absolutely loved it. I thought how they done it was very good.. it was a little slow. I am not one to watch wishy washy love storys.. but I really liked it. However it was very sad at the end. :(
i was planning on boycotting that film, as it somehow managed to offend both straight and gay audiences.
but, it seems, the story (http://www.enotes.com/brokeback-mountain) by Annie Proulx was very good, and, her intent was merely to write a good story. so i think i'll just read that.
What were you offended by ell?
I watched it and did not find it offensive in the least.
Quote from: ell on February 01, 2009, 05:18:22 PM
i was planning on boycotting that film, as it somehow managed to offend both straight and gay audiences.
I think that these days, a lot of gay people will find fault with a film in which one of the principal characters dies. For this very reason, I myself have mixed feelings about
Brokeback; it reproduces the same pattern that I've seen over and over in gay-themed movies. In this respect, I think that the film can be considered homophobic as a work of art even if the message of the film is sympathetic to gays. But this is a period piece. Some might say that since the last scenes, and Jack's death, take place only a couple of decades ago, the movie can't be seen as period. But I still call it a period piece in terms of gay history, and I can be more forgiving about the violence because it happened (well, fictionally) in less enlightened times.
I really love this film despite my misgivings. I think that Gyllenhaal and Ledger both turned in top-notch performances--especially Ledger. Anne Hathaway was very good as well. The story is solid, the scenery is terrific, and I liked the score.
I'm curious, though. I haven't done much reading about people's reactions to the film. I know that a lot of homophobic straight people dislike it; that's to be expected. But why do gay people pan it? For the same reasons that I have mixed feelings?
I dunno, I'm gay and I loved it. Every minute was beautiful to me. I don't know why it would be a problem that one of them dies; there's tragedy in straight romances, too, why should gay ones suddenly all be happy and joyful? Where does the plot go then? God, if we want equality then we want equality- sometimes a principal character dies. I have no idea what's homophobic about that.
I think the movie itself was saying that while Jack's wife did not explicitly say it was a hate crime, Ennis was afraid it was and he was probably right.
Quote from: Nicky on February 01, 2009, 05:41:05 PM
What were you offended by ell?
I watched it and did not find it offensive in the least.
i originally found the
idea of it offensive because it seemed to me that they were too much like cowboys. and i felt that was at least one last bastion of straight culture, and should be left alone. in short, i thought it was disrespectful to straight people. (just my opinion).
Quote from: Arch on February 01, 2009, 05:41:19 PM
But why do gay people pan it?
from reviews, i learned that some gay groups complained that there "weren't any gay people" in the film..! i guess you're not really gay, or trans, until you come out. (just ask Michael Medved).
...What?
Why can't cowboys be gay?
How on earth is that disrespectful to straight people?
It's not like straight people ever had some kind of monopoly on being cowboys. :P I'm sure there've been a few 'real cowboys' who were gay, just by using logic.
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:06:38 PM
...What?
Why can't cowboys be gay?
How on earth is that disrespectful to straight people?
It's not like straight people ever had some kind of monopoly on being cowboys. :P I'm sure there've been a few 'real cowboys' who were gay, just by using logic.
ie - John Wayne - Oh, but he was an actor pretending to be a cowboy
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:06:38 PM
...What?
Why can't cowboys be gay?
How on earth is that disrespectful to straight people?
It's not like straight people ever had some kind of monopoly on being cowboys. :P I'm sure there've been a few 'real cowboys' who were gay, just by using logic.
i am sure you are right. but cowboy movies do not clearly reflect the real world. it's a storybook world of myth and legend. and, and John Wayne, ffs. anyway, though i am not straight, personally, it "seemed" to me to be disrespectful. what the hell do i know?
-ell
And actually, I'm kind of offended that homosexuality is something that can cause disrespect.
Edit- did not see your reply, ell. But I'm still confused about how it could be disrespectful. That implies being gay is a 'taint' or something that's bad, but.. it's just a sexual orientation. Why should it matter if it's a gay cowboy or a gay policeman or a gay whatever?
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:16:11 PM
And actually, I'm kind of offended that homosexuality is something that can cause disrespect. It's just a sexual orientation, people. How can it be disrespectful unless you're also saying that being gay is wrong or bad?
And other than those who rob or harm others, who can say what is wrong or bad?
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:16:11 PM
And actually, I'm kind of offended that homosexuality is something that can cause disrespect.
Edit- did not see your reply, ell. But I'm still confused about how it could be disrespectful. That implies being gay is a 'taint' or something that's bad, but.. it's just a sexual orientation. Why should it matter if it's a gay cowboy or a gay policeman or a gay whatever?
well, gay really *is* bad, in the straight world. are they not thinking, "please don't bring your gay ass in my John Wayne domain?"
I'm a huge fan of Annie Proulx, but I've never seen the movie. However, I read "Close Range," the collection fo short stories that includes "Brokeback Mountain," and I've heard her speak on the subject in interviews.
The story is clearly written from Ennis's point, and at the end, nobody is willing to tell him much of anything about Jack's death. He infers from their attitude toward him that he was beaten to death, and there's not much room to imagine otherwise. However, because it's all from Ennis's point of view, it's never stated outright by any witness.
Proulx seems to be rather annoyed by the "gay cowboy" characterization, first of all because (she says) anyone who knows Wyoming knows that there's a huge cultural gulf between sheep and cattle culture. These guys are sheep ranch handsd, not cowboys.
She's also annoyed by the singling out of that story. (She seems to get annoyed a lot -- she's a prickly New Englander who has addopted a prickly rural Western affect.) She intended the story as part of the collection, which she describes as a series of fantasies. There's something impossible and fantastic in all the stories, from the environmentalist rancher, the serial murderer in the desert 55 miles from the gas pump, the meth-addled youths, the mentally disabled sexual deviant, and so on. Everybody knows that none of that exists -- when of course it all does -- and everybody knows that there aren't any gay people in Wyoming.
It's not just a story about gay people; it's a story about people who aren't supposed to exist. Anyway, that's what the author said.
Quote from: ell on February 01, 2009, 07:30:23 PM
well, gay really *is* bad, in the straight world. are they not thinking, "please don't bring your gay ass in my John Wayne domain?"
Well, yeah, some are. But who cares? That's like saying integration of schools was disrespectful to the KKK. Are gay people supposed to say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was breaking a stereotype or working in a profession you don't want me to be working in.. I'll stop immediately!"
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:42:44 PM
Quote from: ell on February 01, 2009, 07:30:23 PM
well, gay really *is* bad, in the straight world. are they not thinking, "please don't bring your gay ass in my John Wayne domain?"
Well, yeah, some are. But who cares?
straightness is a valid form, just as queer is a valid form. remember how feminists lashed out against men? i don't want to do that. hate and intolerance can exist in every category.
But a movie like Brokeback Mountain isn't intolerance or hatred against straight people. :P It's about ranch hands who happen to form a relationship. I still have no idea how that's disrespectful to straight people. As I said, straight people do not have the market cornered on ranch hands, cowboys, or whatever other hyper-masculine jobs are out there. It's not as though two cowboys forming a relationship suddenly puts the validity of cowboying in doubt, or whatever. I honestly do not understand where you are getting your reasoning from.
Can I be a fashion model without disrespecting straight women? Can a man be a construction worker without disrespecting straight men?
At what point are we
allowed to stop worrying about 'offending straight people' and
realize that any straight person who would take that much offense to a person depicting a gay cowboy is homophobic to begin with?
Sorry, I will
not live my life to appease homophobes. Yes 'straight' is valid just like 'gay' is, my opinion does not dispute that, what it disputes is the idea that gay people should stop being who they are just because somebody might be bothered by us.
Post Merge: February 01, 2009, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:42:44 PM
Quote from: ell on February 01, 2009, 07:30:23 PM
well, gay really *is* bad, in the straight world. are they not thinking, "please don't bring your gay ass in my John Wayne domain?"
Well, yeah, some are.
When I said "some" here, I meant "homophobes."
Gay is NOT bad in the straight world. Gay is bad in the
homophobic world.
We should not be expected, asked, or encouraged to appease the homophobic world. That is ridiculous.
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 07:56:54 PM
We should not be expected, asked, or encouraged to appease the homophobic world. That is ridiculous.
i have already stated that this was only my opinion, and that my opinion "do not matter."
one who is wiser than i once said, "ideas cannot be pounded into heads with hammers."
I'm sorry. Since it's an issue very close to me, I tend to get heated without quite realizing. :-\ I didn't mean to be pushy.
I always liked what one of my friends said Brokeback Mountain proves gay love stories are just as boring as straight love stories.' I never made it past the first half hour. A couple of explosions and a car chase would have helped it a lot.
it's ok, i am an idiot. none of the things i have said are worth much, compared to Alyssa's post.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 01, 2009, 07:32:14 PM
I'm a huge fan of Annie Proulx, but I've never seen the movie. However, I read "Close Range," the collection fo short stories that includes "Brokeback Mountain," and I've heard her speak on the subject in interviews.
The story is clearly written from Ennis's point, and at the end, nobody is willing to tell him much of anything about Jack's death. He infers from their attitude toward him that he was beaten to death, and there's not much room to imagine otherwise. However, because it's all from Ennis's point of view, it's never stated outright by any witness.
Proulx seems to be rather annoyed by the "gay cowboy" characterization, first of all because (she says) anyone who knows Wyoming knows that there's a huge cultural gulf between sheep and cattle culture. These guys are sheep ranch handsd, not cowboys.
She's also annoyed by the singling out of that story. (She seems to get annoyed a lot -- she's a prickly New Englander who has addopted a prickly rural Western affect.) She intended the story as part of the collection, which she describes as a series of fantasies. There's something impossible and fantastic in all the stories, from the environmentalist rancher, the serial murderer in the desert 55 miles from the gas pump, the meth-addled youths, the mentally disabled sexual deviant, and so on. Everybody knows that none of that exists -- when of course it all does -- and everybody knows that there aren't any gay people in Wyoming.
It's not just a story about gay people; it's a story about people who aren't supposed to exist. Anyway, that's what the author said.
Yeah, long drawn out emotional river drags with a sad end never did much for me either
Yeah, like I said, I never made to the end.
And no author is every happy with the way Hollywood does their movie, but since they cashed the checks, not much they could do.
Ell, you're not an idiot. :)
Oh, Ell, I never understand why you see youself in such a poor light. I'm always happy to hear your point of view.
Alas, if that post was worth anything, it was probably the most worthwhile thing I've done all weekend. I've had a rough time lately, just too much to deal with, and I've sort of shut down. So I'm glad someone might have appreciated it. :)
Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 01, 2009, 09:55:20 PM
Oh, Ell, I never understand why you see youself in such a poor light. I'm always happy to hear your point of view.
Alas, if that post was worth anything, it was probably the most worthwhile thing I've done all weekend. I've had a rough time lately, just too much to deal with, and I've sort of shut down. So I'm glad someone might have appreciated it. :)
The last couple of months have been a real @$$ kicker for me too. Your not alone. I'm glad to have friends here to help me keep going :)
Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 01, 2009, 09:55:20 PM
Oh, Ell, I never understand why you see youself in such a poor light. I'm always happy to hear your point of view.
Alas, if that post was worth anything, it was probably the most worthwhile thing I've done all weekend. I've had a rough time lately, just too much to deal with, and I've sort of shut down. So I'm glad someone might have appreciated it. :)
thank you for your kind words. and yes, i liked your post very much.
I had been thinking I should see it because people kept talking about it. This discussion makes me want to see it more.
Quote from: ell on February 01, 2009, 08:08:28 PM
i have already stated that this was only my opinion, and that my opinion "do not matter."
Your opinions matter a great deal to me.
Quote from: TamTam on February 01, 2009, 08:33:33 PM
Ell, you're not an idiot. :)
Hear! Hear!Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 01, 2009, 07:32:14 PM
Proulx seems to be rather annoyed by the "gay cowboy" characterization, first of all because (she says) anyone who knows Wyoming knows that there's a huge cultural gulf between sheep and cattle culture. These guys are sheep ranch handsd, not cowboys.
So this is a literary reference to Mathew Shepherd.
Quote from: tekla on February 01, 2009, 08:22:50 PM
A couple of explosions and a car chase would have helped it a lot.
Ew!
a huge cultural gulf between sheep and cattle culture
It's huge and at one time led to all out war on the frontier.
Quote from: Lisbeth on February 02, 2009, 09:28:36 AMSo this is a literary reference to Mathew Shepherd.
Its publication predates the Matthew Shepherd's murder by a year. The collection, "Close Range," was published later, and there was certainly a resonance between the short story and Shepherd's story.
But in some ways I don't think that the parallel is quite right, anyway. I think that Proulx is getting at something a little deeper about homosexuality, which is that in some real sense it didn't exist in Wyoming in the 1960s. When Ennis said, "I'm not no queer," he was telling the truth. The cultural framework for homosexuality as a valid identity didn't exist there. Queers were a strange and mysterious breed that liven in the city. Jack and Ennis were basically inventing something new.
Though Laramie is hardly the world's most queer-positive town, Shepherd was a well-educated worldly college student who was a teenager in the '90's. His was a different world, though not different enough.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 02, 2009, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: Lisbeth on February 02, 2009, 09:28:36 AMSo this is a literary reference to Mathew Shepherd.
Its publication predates the Matthew Shepherd's murder by a year. The collection, "Close Range," was published later, and there was certainly a resonance between the short story and Shepherd's story.
I find the name "Shepherd" in this case to be a striking coincidence.
All right, I know I'm digging up a topic, but now I'm curious. I read the story (at work...when I worked at Borders...shhhh, don't tell) and I saw the movie (quite a while back)...going back to the original question...
I thought he was changing a tire on the side of the road and got hit by a truck. ??? Is my memory bad? Maybe I should read it again (or at least the end...).
ALSO, I'd highly recommend Now Is the Hour by Tom Spanbauer to anyone who is interested in homosexuality in the West in that time period. It's a beautiful book and the situations are somewhat similar (at least in terms of isolation/location/time period/farm-ranch).
Does anyone own Close Range or the short story? Now I'm REALLY curious and it's midnight...no bookstores open. :'(
The relevant passages are:
[Ennis] "There was two old guys ranched together down home, Earl and Rich ... I wasw, hwat nine years old and they found Earl dead in an irrigation ditch. They took a tire iron to him, spurred him up, drug him around ..."
[Jack] "You seen that?"
[Ennis] "Dad made sure I seen it. ... Hell, for all I know, he done the job."
--
This would be all right, Jack would answer, had to answer. But it he did not. It was Lurleen and she said who? who is this? and when he told her again she said in a level voice yes, Jack was pumping up a flat on the truck out on a back road when the tire blew up. The bead was damaged somehow and the force of the explosion slammed the rim into his face, broke his nose and jaw and knocked him unconscious on his back. By the time someone came along he had drowned in his own blood.
No, he thought, they got him with the tire iron.
(and when he visits her): No doubt about it, she was polite but the little voice was cold as snow.
--
And the last page:
Around that time Jack began to appear in his dreams ... but the can of beans with the spoon handle jutting out and balanced on the log was there as well ... The spoon handle was the kind that could be used as a tire iron. And he would wake up sometimes in grief, sometimes with the old sense of joy and release...
--
So as far as Ennis is concerned, from whose point of view the story is told, it was the tire iron.
Hope that helps.
~Alyssa
Thank you. It does indeed help. :D Those sorts of questions just eat away at you...