January 22nd, 2006

jdepressed

Brokeback Mountain (long impressions)

3/4 of the way through the movie, I came to the odd realization that the entire theatre minus aforementioned Melody and myself was entirely peopled with the elderly.
Alright, maybe not *elderly* but there were definitely verrrry few people under 40 in the theatre.
I'm not going anywhere with this, I was just surprised.

So. Brokeback Mountain, huh?
Where do you begin, about a movie such as this?

The movie starts off and continues mostly the same way: Quiet. Simple. Bittersweet, and a trifle lonely.

I'm inclined to criticize something about the homosexuality, but I really can't think of anything. The movie isn't pushing for acceptance, and the message that it does inherently carry simply by having gay characters is not particularly forced down anyone's throat.

As per usual, this is more impressions than review.

Read more...Collapse )

A lot of the problems people seem to have with this movie deal with the fact that the homosexuals can't control themselves, it's all about sex, yadda yadda.
I don't know how much - if any - of that stems from anyone's homophobia or other aversion to gays, and quite frankly I don't want to know.

I will say a few things, however. And I will say them strongly, and most likely offending someone.

First of all, to anyone who has said this wouldn't have been made into a movie if it were straight people: Of course not.
And yes, it already has been.

Two contradictory statements, sure. But let's examine.
If this were two straight people:

1) There would be no reason why they couldn't separate from their wives/husbands and move in with the other and live happily ever after.
2) Unless it was a long time ago, when we still heavily disliked/didn't legalize divorce and so on and so forth.

Going with the long time ago thing, it's exactly the same as stories like Romeo and Juliet.

The fact is, you couldn't make this movie about straight people *now* because we've accepted divorce and things of that nature. There is no *strong* "logical" reason that an audience would accept for why two heterosexual lovers don't just make things work between them.
Fear of death is a pretty good argument in Brokeback for why two gays wouldn't.
We have not yet accepted (though are starting to accept) open homosexuality/divorcing heterosexual partners for homosexual ones, etc.

By that logic, one would have to watch/read Romeo and Juliet and say "oh, well, so your parents aren't happy, either you love him or you don't, don't do what your parents say."
Do we do that? No.
Because those times were different. In those times you couldn't just do that.

In these times, (at least the ones the movie is set in) you couldn't just move in with your homosexual lover. It's not even particularly *logical* to use "this wouldn't be a movie if it were straight people" as an argument, because of course it wouldn't. It's a non-issue for heterosexuals.

Different stuff about homosexuality, lust, etc.Collapse )


Part of what I think makes this story so powerful isn't necessarily even the homosexuality. It's the denial aspect, the fact that love *doesn't* conquer all. And that is not because of the homosexuality, it's a concept that transcends gender entirely. You can find it in such films as say, The Notebook (until the end).. the difference here is that the film deals with repeated denial of love, companionship, sex, etc, and often in movies where the denial is a component, it is just that, a component. Here, it is the entire premise.

A particularly interesting part - Jack Twist showing finally he's got a hint of a backbone and refusing to let his father-in-law turn the game back on for his son during dinner.

Yeah, um, it's late, and I'm losing coherence rapidly, and I'm sure I will think of other things to edit with later, and/or as people comment, if people comment. So. Let's stop here.

- Ln
Crossposted