Male homosexuality in “Brokeback Mountain” is presented, not as feminine, but as hyper-masculine, even bordering on misogyny. These men are drawn to each other by shared activity in a job done well, and by direct speech that lacks complex meaning—in short, all that straight men traditionally prefer in the world of the cowboy—and not by the discussion of feelings or clothing. When they hug, they slap each other hard on the back, and when they smooch, it looks like a WWF move.
In fact, the men who are attracted to one another in “Brokeback Mountain” treat all things feminine with something that ranges between polite, contrived interest to downright indifference. These gay guys are not a “girl’s best friend” visiting from Planet Fabulous to comment on color-coordinated drapes. I am reminded of a friend of mine who says his gay uncle “can’t stand flamers.” Another friend of mine remarked that he had no issue with men having sex with other men, but preferred those involved to “be a man about it” and not lisp or wear short shorts.
When the two lifelong lovers (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) in “Brokeback” sit by the riverside, middle-aged and crumpling up cheap beer cans, trading monosyllables about their motormouth wives and complaining about high taxes, I realized that an almost identical movie could be made about two straight men. The world of women and civilization, as portrayed in “Brokeback,” is a sordid, cramped indoors of nagging babies, loudmouths-in-law, and general phoniness. The world of men is outdoors and honest, with clearly defined rules and goals, as much as any Michael Mann movie, except Mann’s men would rather put lead in each other than their gizzer-gazzers.
The movie’s first section is its best, as Twist and Ennis (often pronounced “anus,” I’m not making this up) work side-by-side in the 1960s. They’re looking after another’s man sheep, alone in the Wyoming mountains, and these quiet episodes are pastoral and tranquil. They go their separate ways, half-believing they will never see the other again and not sure if they want to. They find wives (Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway). Twist’s father-in-law is that one Southern character actor who seems destined to play Tom DeLay in a TV movie one day (his name is Graham Beckel and he, according to IMDb, has a recurring role on “Battlestar Galactica” as “Jack Fisk;” whether or not he is knowingly named after Brian De Palma's and “The New World’s” production designer is anyone’s guess). Twist is the more ambitious of the two, working for his father-in-law’s tractor business and venturing down to Mexico for male prostitutes when Ennis is being uncooperative. Ennis’s life, however, goes nowhere and gets worse. The characters in “Brokeback Mountain” are complex enough to be contradictory: it is Ennis who turns down Twist’s suggestion that they not marry and live on their own ranch together. Yet it is also lovesick Ennis who is unable to sustain his double-life while Twist becomes comfortable with their fishing trips.
Tiawanese director Ang Lee (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Sense and Sensibility”) gives the movie a clean, even sparse look, and does not give into the temptation to use a heavy hand and “make a statement.” I was so scared of this being a Big Meaning Movie, but it’s not. The result is honest and soulful, with a feeling of loss and sadness by the end. There is no villain, although Randy Quaid’s ranch boss comes closest. He mostly seems irritated that Twist and Ennis are doing the business when they should be on the job. He accepts that in the world of men alone these things sometimes crop up.
“Brokeback” is being hailed as one of 2005’s best more for cultural, political, and personal reasons than for filmmaking prowess, and will no doubt require a U-Haul to transport all its Oscars. It is being attacked—I mean, meaningfully attacked—by those who find this approach to criticism irritating. Usually I’m in that second camp, but it would be dishonest to rail against “Brokeback” simply because “it’s not as good as everyone says it is.” I mean, I’ve never done that before, have I?
January 31 2006, 20:03:36 UTC 6 years ago
I’m also not certain that “indifference” and “misogyny” are interchangeable terms when it comes to their (or the film’s) attitude towards women. You’ll have to make a stronger case for misogyny instead of just throwing the term around. I also have a hunch that in your descriptions of the film you’re equating “male homosexuality” with merely the physical hyper-masculine sexual acts? Too bad. Their various signs of tender affection, girlish enthusiasm, and their actual psychological “sexuality” are much more involved than that (“complex enough to be contradictory,” as you put it).
I do agree with you about it not being a ‘Big Meaning Movie’ and I know what you’re trying to say by “lacks complex meaning,” but that’s probably not what you really want to say—each of their laconic statement is richly profound (as much for the silences as for the words!). As it turns out, I really didn’t see you ever make the argument that it’s not as good as some say it is. The simplicity of the film (Prieto’s cinematography, the costumes, that wonderful score, etc.) is its strength, and I’m glad that such a subtle movie is getting such wide acclaim. Is there a reason you don’t think it’s so great? Other than just resentment at its position as a cultural icon? Or perhaps personal discomfort (or boredom) with the gay / feminine (i.e. “weepy”) subject matter?
February 1 2006, 17:51:40 UTC 6 years ago
That's what I mean by "direct speech that lacks complex meaning." To speak broadly, "feminine" speech is INTENTIONALLY littered with hidden meanings (Joanna has issues aplenty with this regarding her mom and grandma). While "masculine" speech may be littered with hidden meanings (as in this film), but not intended by the speaker to have anything hidden. Twist and Ennis are certainly as profound as the day is long, but their intent is always to say what they mean and mean what they say.
I hardly think one use of the term "misogyny" constitutes throwing it around. But one of things I enjoyed about "Brokeback" is that it questions the popular notion that gay guys and women are natural allies. It questions that Bloodhound Gang song "I Wish I Were Queer So I Could Get Chicks." In the popular imagination, gay men are a girl's best friend, while gay women are incongruously presented as man haters. "Brokeback" asserts that, for these particular gay guys, loving other men is the manliest thing you can do, and springs not from wanting to perform feminine activities that are socially forbidden to them, but from such massive indifference to all things feminine that they aren't even interested in touching girls. Put simply, Ennis lives like a pig. I was reading a biography of Kakfa that mentioned, rather offhandedly, that Europe's first openly gay magazine was a woman-hating pro-Aryan thing. "Brokeback's" subject matter was gay but, in a way, distinctly NOT feminine.
But you're right, I should replace the high-falutin' "male homosexuality" with "this couple of gay dudes." (Or maybe something like "'Brokeback Mountain' presents its gay couple as hyper-masculine...")
The misogyny popped up not so much when Ennis wants to beat his wife, ignore her, or altogether treat her like garbage as when he and mustached Twist are sitting by the river talking about their wives and the subtext is "stupid women...they don't understand us." And when Twist and the beard-bear rancher dude are sitting outside the dancehall talking about what a brainless loudmouth beard-bear's wife is. Really, they don't hate women anymore than average straight married men do, but if reading your stuff has taught me anything, that's still an awful lot.
As for why the movie isn't great...I enjoyed it, but it just didn't hit me that way. I liked the sheep. The couple's little guitar theme was a touch too "poignant."
February 1 2006, 18:12:40 UTC 6 years ago
Yeah, the struggle to do the sheep job and their mutual vulnerability in the face of obstacles was definitely the basis of their initial connection. And I thought that Twist started out as but Ennis ended up as the more ‘feminine’ of the two—he was the one who was always giddy about the boy coming to take him out on a date, then kept playing hard-to-get when faced with Twist’s straightforward proposals, and ended up being highly sentimental about token objects with nostalgic smells (the jacket).
You’re making a better argument for misogyny, but I guess that word just never popped into my mind with this film. And since you dropped it into the first sentence and then never really followed through, I just thought it needed more development. In my opinion, Ennis does genuinely care about his family—he’s just confused and under stress.
Also, keep in mind that gossiping about (even to the point of criticizing) women isn’t necessarily hatred of them. Using women as a reference point is a common form of homosocial bonding. Straight guys are able to share their sexuality with each other by talking about how ‘hot’ this or that girl is—literally using the female body as a unit of exchange. I think the guys in this film were broaching the subject of their mutual attraction by contrasting that with their antipathy towards women.
February 1 2006, 19:18:16 UTC 6 years ago
February 1 2006, 19:49:09 UTC 6 years ago
February 6 2006, 21:30:05 UTC 6 years ago
February 1 2006, 20:48:34 UTC 6 years ago
But Twist is the one who stole Ennis's shirt all those years ago, remember, and kept it at his parents' house where it would be safe (his wife would have thrown away a blood-stained shirt). So the sentiment was on both sides there.
In some ways, Twist was the feminine one, because he was pushing to take the relationship to the next step or get more commitment--occasional booty calls weren't enough for him. It's the female of traditional relationships that pushes for commitments and ties, while men often pull back and want their freedom. The majority of adult females who're dating somebody they love will be trying to get the man to marry them, whether overtly or discreetly.
I also noticed several time in the movie that Twist valued snuggles more than Ennis--he cuddled or held Ennis several times, but didn't see Ennis doing that to Twist as often.
February 1 2006, 20:57:03 UTC 6 years ago
I didn't see that. Women enjoy talking about their feelings and thoughts, even when it's of absolutely no consequence to the task at hand or of any importance to their daily lives. Jack & Ennis got better about communicating over time, but it wouldn't have been enough for most women. Plus I think one of the biggest reasons they were attracted to each other is because in the male/male relationship, there weren't any pressures to be the breadwinner, no kids to care for, no intrusive in-laws, no nagging women wanting nicer things. It felt to me that they weren't so much craving manlove, as they were wanting love whilst resenting the womenfolk. So, I don't agree that this movie could have as easily been about a male/female pairing.
February 1 2006, 22:16:37 UTC 6 years ago
February 2 2006, 00:45:29 UTC 6 years ago
That's a great way to phrase it.
February 2 2006, 15:29:17 UTC 6 years ago
I'm really glad you guys got a chance to see it. I loved it :)
February 6 2006, 22:12:07 UTC 6 years ago
I never said that "Brokeback" could be made about a heterosexual couple (The Amused did). It couldn't be made about a boy and girl, but it could (almost) be about two straight boys who don't have sex or want to, who simply find the civilized/"female" world confining, fake, or made of rules that are always arbitrarily in flux. If the men really did just fish and not fool around, then the nature of the film would, of course, be changed: they would no longer be running "toward" something (each other), but "away" from something (the civilized world), which would still fit Ang's style.
I made the Michael Mann comparison because in Mann's films ("Heat" and "Ali" most specifically, but also "Manhunter") all is fair in war but never in love. Mann's men can never decode what women and civilized life want, but the rules of boxing, bank robbery, and blowing away serial killers have clearly defined rules and parameters--a "code." In "Ali," I'm thinking specifically of the scene in which Ali and Joe Frazier are being kept from fighting by the "corrupt" elements of society, while they both feel that their manhood can only tested in the clearly-defined confines of "the ring" where life is fair.
The all-male world of "Brokeback's" mountain functions in the same way: there is a "code" (the natural simplicity and purity of life on the range, in which every man succeeds only by the work of his hands a la "The New World," or something). Everything on the mountain "makes sense" in much the same way that men traditionally like to pretend that men are "reasonable" and "say what they mean" while women are "flighty." In the same way that Mann's protagonists usually glimpse the hollowness of their warrior/boxer code, Ennis and Twist glimpse that their private code is lacking.
I'm trying (badly) to connect, in some way, "Brokeback" to those Shakespeare and Dickensian "mistaken identity" stories in which a woman in drag becomes the confidante of some dude who complains "I wish I could find a woman who could hunt/talk/belch like a man!" The drag king then turns back into a woman and uses her newfound knowledge of manliness to seduce the man. There is a popular (and accurate) tendency to read this kind of thing as homoerotic, but the man involved doesn't crave to be feminine so much as be rid of feminity. The man doesn't confess to his confidante "I wish I could be more girly!" so much as "I wish I could never put up with anything girly ever again." (The lesbian version of this would be, I suppose, the Mel Gibson film "What Women Want.")
Or maybe I'm just naturally as girly as Jack and Ennis so that I hardly registered them being girly at all.
February 6 2006, 22:19:04 UTC 6 years ago
February 1 2006, 21:01:30 UTC 6 years ago
I didn't get that at all--to me, the movie's theme was was hate crimes against homosexuals. I went into more detail with that in my blog that you don't read, but even the movie didn't OMGHITAUDIENCEOVERTHEHEADAAARRRGGGHHHMUS
February 1 2006, 22:24:54 UTC 6 years ago
Granted, that’s just my own personal take—and this movie is particularly marvelous as a Rorschach since everybody sees what they want to see—but I think I do side with Peter on the open-ended nature of its thematic resolution.
February 7 2006, 19:15:00 UTC 6 years ago
February 7 2006, 19:19:53 UTC 6 years ago