Come Anticipate "Brokeback Mountain" With Me

This is, of course, quite incorrect.

By LARRY DAVID
Published: January 1, 2006

SOMEBODY had to write this, and it might as well be me. I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain," nor do I have any intention of seeing it. In fact, cowboys would have to lasso me, drag me into the theater and tie me to the seat, and even then I would make every effort to close my eyes and cover my ears.

And I love gay people. Hey, I've got gay acquaintances. Good acquaintances, who know they can call me anytime if they had my phone number. I'm for gay marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don't want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That's all.

Is that so terrible? Does that mean I'm homophobic? And if I am, well, then that's too bad. Because you can call me any name you want, but I'm still not going to that movie.

To my surprise, I have some straight friends who've not only seen the movie but liked it. "One of the best love stories ever," one gushed. Another went on, "Oh, my God, you completely forget that it's two men. You in particular will love it."

"Why me?"

"You just will, trust me."

But I don't trust him. If two cowboys, male icons who are 100 percent all-man, can succumb, what chance to do I have, half- to a quarter of a man, depending on whom I'm with at the time? I'm a very susceptible person, easily influenced, a natural-born follower with no sales-resistance. When I walk into a store, clerks wrestle one another trying to get to me first. My wife won't let me watch infomercials because of all the junk I've ordered that's now piled up in the garage. My medicine cabinet is filled with vitamins and bald cures.

So who's to say I won't become enamored with the whole gay business? Let's face it, there is some appeal there. I know I've always gotten along great with men. I never once paced in my room rehearsing what to say before asking a guy if he wanted to go to the movies. And I generally don't pay for men, which of course is their most appealing attribute.

And gay guys always seem like they're having a great time. At the Christmas party I went to, they were the only ones who sang. Boy that looked like fun. I would love to sing, but this weighty, self-conscious heterosexuality I'm saddled with won't permit it.

I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day. "You like those cowboys, don't you? They're kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they're cute. You can't fool me, gay man. Go ahead, stop fighting it. You're gay! You're gay!"

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Larry David appears in the HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Stephanie Zancharek, whose negative review I otherwise accept, remarked that Anne Hathaway was poorly directed -- a ridiculous assertion.

Mark Allen writes:

In a heartbreaking scene where Lureen [Anne Hathaway] is telling Ennis an obviously made-up story of how her husband died, she's shown reciting the tall tale over the phone in a bored monotone, perched in a gorgeous all-white living room, dripping in silver, turquoise and platinum mile-high hair... any look of emotion on her face obscured by mountains of Mary Kay.

http://www.outsports.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002660

(the later pages, obv)

http://www.the-ozone.net/05-06images/football/12-27-05/NotreDame/images/12-27-05-FB-0533.jpg

I read the Ioannis Mookas article you posted. It made several good-but-predictable points ("Is it me, or is there not something inherently masochistic in gays obediently lining up to throw our mythic disposable income at a movie whose stars assiduously deny their own gayness, as well as their characters’?") and a few ridiculous ones (giving your money to the Evil Media Conglomerate NBC Universal; guess I should stop buying major-label albums too.).

None of the film's more fervent dismissals are as perceptive as the guarded raves in the Voice, Slate, and Salon.

Yeah, I grok the quixotic nature of the anti-GE screed, but it makes marginally more sense in the context of this REVOLUTIONARY film! And all the purty shots of pollutant-free Wyoming (Alberta).

Good spotting of DP Rodrigo Prieto in the hustler alley upthread.

Nice late bit by Roberta Maxwell as Jack's mom. Tho the dad's "and there was this OTHER fella" -- maybe the most withering line in Proulx -- loses most of its sting cuz we've SEEN the other fella already.

leaving aside the issue of whether or not i'm "quite incorrect" in my dislike of anne hathaway, this seemed to be the case amongst the audience the other day. it was a sold-out showing, and from what i overheard the main topic of exit discussion was what the telephone scene actually meant. i'm also assuming that not all of these people were drooling idiots incapable of picking up on the subtleties of the plot, and that either her performance or the direction led to some confusion.

I don't know, overall it seemed poorly written or poorly portrayed. I can't put my finger on it.

I'm not saying that Jack was indeed beaten to death; since the scene is definitely shot from Ennis' point of view, it's subjective. But Lureen's reaction (and how Hathaway intoned the lines) sure as hell suggested that she was lying about something.

the wives are vital!! they probelmatize a competely queer reading, they hetreosexualise the discourse.

i think the word "heterosexualise" is a little silly, but you're right, they complicate the film, although a lot of people felt like the film doesn't show much (enough) sympathy with the michelle williams character. in a way her and heath's divorce, like jake's death, seem to invest the narrative with a certain degree of "realistic" chance or randomness but also serve as a kind of escape for the screenwriters who are able to deal only superficially with some of the most knotty issues that a story like this could potentially raise.

the weird last scene w/anne hathaway just amplified the ambiguity of the "flashback" to gyllenhaal's death. the robotic way hathaway recites the circumstances of gylenhaal's death could lead to a number of irreconciliable interpretations. i don't know if it was *designed* that way or if the screenwriters and director weren't seeking that kind of ambiguity. in any event i'm not sure what the ambiguity (intended or not) adds to the film.

i thought hathaway was just fine. anyway i was too distracted in the earlier scenes by her RED HAT. yow.

i still think the last shot was lovely.

actually i agree, but i think that in the context of an overall robotic performance in an underwritten role it becomes ambiguous in a way not perhaps intended.

I was rooting for her to leave Ennis! The film would rightly be dismissed as Guess Who's Coming To Dinner if the wives had been shrewish harridans. In fact, all the women are sympathetically written and acted (even though Lureen's increasingly ridiculous hair-do's are a bit much).

yeah her character was kind of ... inconsistent.

don't know if that means: complexity or incoherence.

the RED HAT was definitely erotic

http://www.co.lubbock.tx.us/HR/Halloween/1_Halloween-Red-Hat-Lady-20.jpg

A.H. should've had a peroxided mustache.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008438V.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Now this may be the most hetero-pandering scene in the movie. Judging from the audience's reaction (everyone applauded), it had its intended effect, although Lee is too tasteful a director to film a scene like this with intentions this crass.

(hmm...maybe he could use more crassness like this)

Lurleen looked fantastic in the beginning when she was barrel-racing. But the later perioxide look was horrid. maybe that's why jack started going to prostitutes.

Who's Afraid of Riding 'Brokeback'?

BY JIM EMERSON
January 3, 2006

"Whoa, Nelly!" It seems that "Brokeback Mountain" has set off a tizzy of squeamish homosexual panic that's rippling across the nation! From critics to pundits to stand-up comics making sophomoric puns -- everybody's cracking the same lame and uncomfortable "gay cowboy" jokes over and over, but for different reasons, and I'm trying to keep track of it all. Let's see, over here we have those (mostly straight male critics) who think it's "not gay enough" (whatever that means) and might alienate its "core audience." And over here are those (mostly gay activists) who resent that the leads are ostensibly straight actors instead of gay ones.

And over here are some Kinsey 1-6 men and women wiping their eyes and noses on their sleeves. I don't think any of this other stuff would even be brought up now if "Brokeback Mountain" hadn't turned out to be such a darn good movie. And it's a Western, you know.

To me, what's been fascinating are the conflicted reactions of those who either do or do not want to see the movie in the first place: They're "afraid" to see it because of what it might reveal (to themselves or others) about their own sexuality; or they don't want to see it because they think it's a Hollywood plot to ram a "gay agenda" down America's collective throat; or they feel guilty about not wanting to see it because they're not homophobic, but they just don't want to watch two guys in love (even though they do like Westerns); or they want to go but they can't take a (female heterosexual) date (what would they talk about afterwards?) and they don't want to go by themselves or with another guy; or they want to wait until it's out on DVD because they don't want to see it, or be seen with it, in public....

Let's take a look at some examples of "Brokebackophilia" and "Brokebackophobia":

1) Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Heath? Bill O'Reilly (who amazingly thinks that "Spin" and "Talking Points" are two different things) told Michael Medved and Jeannie Wolf that he wasn't going to see it because he was "afraid." Of what, he didn't say, but it was apparently supposed to be a joke about his wooziness when it comes to... what? Horsies? Marlboro Men? Sheep? I dunno. So, then Larry "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" David wrote a satirical op-ed in the New York Times in which he made fun of people like Bill O'Reilly (and himself), trying to find excuses for why he said he didn't want to see the movie:

I'm for gay marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don't want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That's all.

Is that so terrible? Does that mean I'm homophobic? And if I am, well, then that's too bad. Because you can call me any name you want, but I'm still not going to that movie.

To my surprise, I have some straight friends who've not only seen the movie but liked it. "One of the best love stories ever," one gushed. Another went on, "Oh, my God, you completely forget that it's two men...." [...]

If two cowboys, male icons who are 100 percent all-man, can succumb, what chance to do I have, half- to a quarter of a man, depending on whom I'm with at the time? I'm a very susceptible person, easily influenced, a natural-born follower with no sales-resistance.
Fox's John "War on Christmas" Gibson (the guy with the biggest, gayest neo-Liberace helmut-pompadour blonde dye job you've ever seen) has announced again and again that he isn't going to see "the gay cowboy movie" (ha ha!) either, and was glad that Larry David, uh, "rode to [his] rescue." Funny guy. Funny ha-ha, I mean.

To me, this is the funniest part of the whole homosexual-panic reaction to "Brokeback Mountain" -- not just that seeing it or not seeing it is seen as a kind of statement, but that it's necessary for people to make a statement about seeing it or not seeing it. Some people not only feel defensive about not wanting to see it, but feel compelled to come out and announce that they don't want to see it. Does that mean they're really homophobic, or latent queer, or right-wing fundamentalists or all of the above? I "came out" recently about my (initially) unconscious resistance to seeing "King Kong" (it has to do with the 3-hour running time and my fear of feeling bad when they kill the big, sweet, furry galoot -- I don't like to see even CGI animals get hurt), but since when do people have to feel so guilty or conflicted about not wanting to see a movie? As it happens, Larry David's straight friends are right: Part of what's so good about "Brokeback Mountain" is precisely that it's a great movie love story and that you don't even think about playing stupid, reductive identity politics with the characters' lives.

(Anybody who thinks that "straight" and "gay" are permanent or exclusive binary options, or comprehensive definitions of human sexuality, will probably be surprised or confused by the movie anyway, because it doesn't make an issue of "gay" or "straight" identity or behavior. It's just a movie about the lives of these two guys who meet and work together and develop a friendship with benefits at a crucial time in their lives -- and, as with a lot of male friendships, that early on-the-job bonding becomes a life-long relationship. And, every once in a while, Jack and Ennis have sex.)

My friend John, whom I've known (entirely platonically!) for almost 30 years and who now lives with his wife Mary in Los Angeles, told me recently about a male friend of his who wanted to go see "Brokeback Mountain" but didn't know how. He knew he couldn't take a date. He didn't want to go by himself -- or with another guy (how would that look? he obsessed). So, John came up with the perfect solution: He invited his friend to accompany him and Mary.

"Great!" said the friend. "But if Mary cancels, I'm not going."

John, who's in the music industry, said: "This is the perfect DVD movie. It could be huge."

2) "Not gay enough" or "too gay"? "Brokeback Mountain" -- like "Munich," another one of 2005's best movies -- does not paint its characters in solid black-and-white. But that's exactly what worries some, who have been trying to predict whether (supposedly straight, "mainstream") audiences will find it "too gay" and be turned off, or whether (supposedly gay, activist) audiences will find it "not gay enough" (in a political sense) and be turned off.

In his "Straight dudes' guide to 'Brokeback,' " David White at MSNBC offers some advice to those who are worried about the "too gay" part:
You kind of have no idea how important it is for you to shut up. But it’s crucial. I was recently at a press screening for another movie and I overheard four guys in the theater lobby talking about “Brokeback.” They were resolute in their refusal to go see it and they couldn’t stop loudly one-upping each other about how they had no interest, were not “curious,” and were, in the words of the loudest guy in the group, “straight as that wall over there.” Oh, the wall with poster for the Big Gay Cowboy Movie on it? That straight wall? Well here’s something that everyone else now knows but that guy: he’s probably gay. Being silent marks you as too cool to care about how other men see you. It means you’re comfortable and not freaked by your own naked shadow. Did Steve McQueen go around squawking about how straight-as-a-wall he was? No, he didn’t. He was too busy being stoic and manly.
And besides:
It’s about 130 minutes long and 129 of them are about Men Not Having Sex.
And:
Dude, it's a western.... And the script was adapted by none other than Total Dude Larry McMurtry. That guy is the coolest western writer in the country. He wrote “Lonesome Dove.” You love “Lonesome Dove.” In fact, the only problem with remembering that it’s a western is having to ignore the fact that most westerns are about 1000 percent gay. If you think I’m making that up, just go watch “Red River” again.
I would add that "Brokeback Mountain" isn't even 10 percent as gay as "Top Gun" or "Jarhead," and that the man-on-man contact in both those films is much heavier and more explicit than any "stemming the rose" in "Brokeback."

Back in September, David Poland, over at The Hot Button, made a prediction after seeing "Brokeback Mountain" in the mountains of Colorado at the Telluride Film Festival:
I still think that there could be some backlash against the film since it depicts gay men (presumably, though one of the two men is clearly a happily active bi-sexual and the other seems okay with married life though obsessed with the other man, though not men in general) as unable to move forward, suppressed by society and the threat of anti-gay rage rearing its head. It's hard to imagine Larry Kramer or Andrew Sullivan going for the politics of this film.

On the flip side, I didn't find a gay man at Telluride who saw the film and was not a fan, including some very, very smart, fully out, sharp-tongued guys. [...]

In so many ways, "Brokeback Mountain" is not inherently political. It is a very old-fashioned romance....
More recently, in the Village Voice year-end movie poll, critic Steve Erickson said:
It's no surprise that a "Brokeback" backlash is coming, but the form it's taking is odd: straight male critics complaining it's not gay enough. They think a gay film has to prove — or at least aspire to — its outlaw authenticity. "Brokeback" is not just another story of tragic, helpless victims. Repression, especially the internalized variety, is the clear villain here. It comes in many forms: Straight people claiming the authority to determine queer legitimacy and then fetishizing it is one.
... while another critic, Nathan Lee, wrote:
If I hear one more straight critic complain that "Brokeback Mountain" isn't particularly gay, I'm gonna spit on my hand, lube up my ----, and ---- him in the ----. I'm only kissing if he looks like Heath Ledger, though.
Only Lee didn't use all those little dashes.

So, you may be shocked to learn that, despite what you may have been led to believe, "Brokeback Mountain" is not, in fact, all things to all people. I know, it's a wild concept. The movie tells a small-scale, narrowly delineated story, specific to these individual characters in their time and place, that makes no overt political claims -- except, natch, that it's part of a Hollywood conspiracy to promote a "pro-gay" agenda. It's also not particularly gay, although there's some of that in it.

Which brings me to my favorite "review" of "Brokeback Mountain" over at Red State Update. In a variation on SCTV's "Farm Film Report" with Billy Sol Hurok (Joe Flaherty) and Big Jim McBob (John Candy), Jackie Brole and Dunlap (played by Nashville comics Travis and Jonathan) discuss that new "King Kong" movie everybody's been talkin' about (the new one, not the old black-and-white one), and how it's nice to enjoy a good Western. What I think is particularly great about this hilariously inarticulate discussion -- which is sort of the whole "Brokeback" tizzy in a nutsack -- is that it's not just another stupid "gay cowboy" joke, but is more about the perceptions of moviegoers than it is about the movie itself.(Thanks to readers who sent in this link.)

3) "Is it breakthrough enough"? Finally, and perhaps most curious of all, is a commentary by my former Los Angeles Film Critics Association colleague David Ehrenstein, who points out that "Brokeback Mountain" is not a gay breakthrough like some are saying because it was preceded by many much gayer movies, and that those who say it's some kind of "gay breakthrough" are wrong because the movie is not what they say it is -- i.e., a "gay breakthrough" movie. Then he kind of bashes the movie for not being the very thing that he says it isn't:
Heath Ledger’s faithful Ennis Del Mar waits for Jake Gyllenhaal’s straying Jack Twist and his “fishing trip” invites just as Irene Dunne pined away for a “drop-in” from her married lover, John Boles, in 1932’s "Back Street." But we’re not supposed to speak of such things, living as we do in what Gore Vidal calls “The United States of Amnesia.” We’re instead encouraged to ignore the precedents shattered by three decades of truly groundbreaking queer films — with "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (1971) leading a pack that also includes "My Beautiful Laundrette" (1985), "Parting Glances" (1986), Todd Haynes’ "Poison" (1991) and "Velvet Goldmine" (1998), Gus Van Sant’s "Mala Noche" (1985) and "My Own Private Idaho" (1991), "Savage Nights" (1992), "The Long Day Closes" (1992), "Wild Reeds" (1994), "Urbania" (2000), "Les Passagers" (1999), Patrice Chereau’s "L’Homme Blesse" (1983) and "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" (1998), "Kinsey" (2004), and, just this year, "Tropical Malady" and "Mysterious Skin." No, what’s really supposed to be important is the saddle-packing same-sex equivalent of "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner."

Newsweek’s Smith is simply agog at how “Gyllenhaal and Ledger don’t dodge it. The kissing and the sex scenes are fierce and full-blooded. But if the actors were taking a risk, they sure don’t seem to think so.” Goodness, you’d swear the thing starred Tom Cruise and Kevin Spacey.

And what about gay actors playing gay roles? Is it beyond their ken? Would they be open to accusations of “simply being themselves” rather than “really acting”? In a marvelously irreverent article published in The Guardian called “Gay for Today,” writer Philip Hensher put it best: “There are no gay actors — or at least, there weren’t until Nathan Lane, to everyone’s utter incredulity, came out. Of course, there were gay actors in America’s past — James Dean, Cary Grant, Dirk Bogarde, Rock Hudson, Danny Kaye. Plenty of them, in fact. But, for whatever reason, there’s hardly a single gay actor of recognizable stature working in Hollywood. An incredible fact.”
Maybe I missed the part where "Brokeback Mountain" announced it was a "gay breakthrough." (Oh, the marketers are also being criticized for downplaying the gayness -- even though there may not be enough -- in trying to reach a "mainstream" audience.) I agree with David that all the swoony talk about how "brave" this solidly classical movie is -- or the actors are -- is sheer sheep dung. But "Brokeback Mountain" is no pedantic liberal thesis movie like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." And it's not the movie's fault that some ignorami are writing about it as if it were. (David: Think "All That Heaven Allows" or "Ali -- Fear Eats the Soul," in the guise of a traditional, sexually and emotionally repressed Western. Is there any other kind -- "Johnny Guitar" excepted? I mean, while we're citing Todd Haynes and Gus van Sant, shouldn't we mention Douglas Sirk and R.W. Fassbinder and Howard Hawks and John Ford -- "Two Rode Together," indeed! -- too?)

As for the "gay actor" question, I look at it this way: We all know there are a lot more gay actors playing straight parts than straight actors playing gay parts. The big difference is that the gay actors pretend that not all of what they do is acting.

Hensher's catty comments are so disingenuous he reminds me of Austin Powers: "Yeah, and I can't believe Liberace was gay. I mean, women loved him! I didn't see that one coming." Surely there's no doubt that are at least as many high-profile gay (or Kinsey 1+) actors working in Hollywood as there've ever been. And just like those Hensher mentions from the past, most of them -- with the notable exception of "Lord of the Rings"/"X-Men" icon, Sir Ian McKellen -- are not "out" to the general public. But everybody in the movie biz seems to know who they are. Or, at least, they've heard some pretty good rumors.

Whether these actors want to officially come out on the job or not is up to them. I'd like to think it wouldn't hurt their careers at all, but I'm not going to blame them for shutting up if they think it would. Or if they just don't want to deal with the particular kind of media attention they'd be inviting. And, again, that's hardly the fault of "Brokeback Mountain" or Ang Lee or Heath Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal. Don't hate them because they're pretty!

So, there you go. It's completely up to you if you want to see or skip the first sort-of gay but maybe not gay enough cowboy love story Western picture show. Just don't assume it's what anybody else tells you it is. Or isn't. You know what "assume" does...

No, and no.

A Western by definition is not centered solely on a romance. A manhunt, a cattle drive, defeating the railroad baron ... In fact, the romance usually is soured by/interferes with this objective. But cuz BBM has the right hats and scenes at rodeos, got-damn, it must be a Western.

i do think the sort of pat critical pronouncement that "it's a western" is one of those mildly "shocking" statements that doesn't really hold water. so i'm basically agreeing with you.

more to the point, what PURPOSE does calling this film a Western serve? not a very interesting one to my mind. yes, it's about the West. yes, it's about ranch hands in big hats. but it otherwise doesn't engage (critically or otherwise) with the "Western" syntax.... which is not a criticism.

Rancho Notorious: But she made the wules on that wanch! Very political! Plus it has manhunt / suspense / climactic shootout elements, doesn't it? (It's been years.)