History Headscratchers / BrokebackMountain

*** Jack was already tagged with the reputation of being a "queer". In the bar scene after Jack got bucked at the rodeo, he tries to buy a beer for the guy who helped him when he got bucked off a bull. He clearly had built a system to meet and find other gay men where he was (Note, he was seeing another man and its a good assumption, given his relatively affluent life and his wealthy father-in-law, he could find gay men in big cities nearby.)

*** Jack was already tagged with the reputation of being a "queer". In the bar scene after Jack got bucked at the rodeo, he tries to buy a beer for the guy who helped him when he got bucked off a bull. He clearly had built a system to meet and find other gay men where he was (Note, he was seeing another man and its a good assumption, given his relatively affluent life and his wealthy father-in-law, he could find gay men in big cities nearby.)
** Disclaimer: I'm not gay. I know nothing about homosexuality, the culture, lifestyle, the social movement. One of the reasons Jack and Ennis wouldn't move to the big city was that they were not really made for each other. I didn't think I'd like this movie going in. It's really not my thing. But it's a great character study. You could make it about a man and a woman and it would still work just fine. Which I think makes it a great film. They can't move because they're trapped more by each other than by society being down on them. They're ruled by their lust. Not just as gay lust, but as that one person who just sort of "does it" for you. They just turn you on. Whether you like it or not, whether you like them or not. Even if they were in San Francisco and their sexual orientation was not just accepted but welcome, and they could integrate, and all would be fine, they themselves still wouldn't fit together as people even though they enjoy each other sexually. And that's what's so great about it. It's a tragic doomed story for two lovers who really don't like each other.


----

* Why didn't Jack move to San Francisco or New York? It was the '60s, on the dawn of the Gay Rights movement, he should have figured out that not everywhere was Homophobic, especially not as homophobic as rural Wyoming or Texas.

* Why do people on this site keep complaining about the main characters being called gay and linking to [[NoBisexuals No Bisexuals]]? While the characters DID have sex with both men and women, it was my clear understanding that they were only attracted to men, and only had sex with women because of the pressure society put on them to "be normal". Also, in this case, being gay or bisexual marks the difference between "A man trapped in a sham marriage trying to be with the man he loves" and "A man who cheats on his wife (who he has a kid with, if I remember correctly) with a man who he wants more". One's a tragic hero. One's a cheating asshole. So I think the distinction is worth preserving.
** Then I hope he's gay, so he doesn't make us non-cheating Bisexuals [[{{Depraved Bisexual}} look bad]].
** Oh, so if you cheat on your wife with another man or woman in a bisexual affair, you're a cheating asshole; but if you cheat on your wife in a gay affair, you're some kind of hero? I don't see the distinction. Cheating on your spouse (whether straight, gay, or bi) is an assholey thing to do.
*** It is an assholey thing to do, and Ennis IS an asshole. However, the message of the story does differ a bit if you accept that Ennis is bisexual rather than a repressed homosexual. (On the other hand, I was under the impression that ''Jack'' was legitimately bisexual.)
*** Both is assholey, but being a repressed gay is a ''bit'' more sympathic. The reason why cheating is wrong is because there's no reason not to simply patch up the relationship or just leave and find someone you like. A bi man can do that. A gay man can ''never'' do that if he lives in the wrong time/place. A gay man is stuck between relationships he doesn't want or eternal bachelorhood while needing to throw off suspicion. It's a lose/lose situation all round. Anyone understand what I'm getting at?
**** So... Bisexuals who find the love has gone out of a relationship now have a RESPONSIBILITY to patch it up just because they have the "option?" Relationships are about the love, not the sexuality. "Love knows no boundaries!"
**** No, ''all'' people in a relationship have the responsibility to either work out their problems or leave it rather than just cheat. That's why society tends to frown on cheaters, because they didn't try those responsible options. But a gay man living in a homophobic time can't work out his relationship (because it's inherently incompatible) and while he can leave he can't stay single forever (or he'll get the suspicious side-eye). So he can either stay in a loveless marriage, stay single and try to throw of suspicion, or cheat.
**** Indignation aside, there's really nothing that supports Ennis being gay; He was engaged before he met Jack, and why would a young man be if he didn't have feelings for the girl? Not to mention that he did have a relationship with a woman after he got divorced, which didn't seem serious enough to be attributed to pressure. He is also was very adamant about not being gay at the start, which [[EpilepticTrees gives the indication the he isn't exactly used to same sex attraction]] Either way, even a straight person should know that you can't control whom you're attracted to or love.
***** Because he couldn't possibly have thought it's just the normal thing you do, even if it never felt quite right, and felt pressured to do said normal thing.
**** As far as I can remember, it took him quite some time to find a new girl, and then he never had another one after that relationship ended. Seriously, why is it so important to have NoBisexuals that every straight relatioship needs to be [[HandWave excused]]?
*** Maybe Ennis really had strong feelings for his wife before they got married, you can love someone without being ''in love'' with them, after all. Assuming that he was gay and not bisexual, it is possible that he didn't realise that he was gay since he had never been in love with a guy, and therefore didn't know how those feelings were supposed to be. When he met his future wife, he found that he liked her a lot and just assumed that that's what romantic love was supposed to feel like. After the divorce, maybe that other woman was ''supposed'' to be another attempt att throwing off suspicion, only Ennis realised that it would never work before it got that serious and opted instead for being alone.
*** As far as I can tell, the issue is the mixed signals we got from the Writing and the Acting. Jake, Heath, and Ang all assumed that because the main characters marry and sleep with women, they must be Bisexual, but the writing for the wives seems very forced and unloving, whereas the writing for Ennis and Jack is perfectly accurate for a closeted homosexual relasionship in that enviroment. So if you pay attention to what they say, it's about two gay men who happened to meet despite the odds and are forced apart by societal standards. If you pay attention to how they say it, it's about two Bisexual men who are drawn to each other not because it is their only requited loves, but because they are soul mates. In the end, you get a hot mess of [[AlternativeCharacterInterpretation Both]]
* Okay, this really annoys me. One of the most pervasive myths about male homosexuality is that it is all about anal sex. (This myth has been exploded by Stephen Fry, amongst others, who says that anal sex is no more common in homosexual relationships than it is in heterosexual relationships). Why then does a film supposedly so enlightened go on to confirm this very myth?
** Because it's easier to 'show' buttsex without showing any naughty bits than it is to show, say, oral sex without showing any naughty bits. My problem is less that they had the buttsex and more that they ''didn't use lube''.
*** Except Ennis' spit.
**** 1) It`s expected that `this is what gay men do`, even among gay men, especially those who aren`t experienced. 2) A lot of us do regularly engage in, and even prefer, anal sex. No, it`s not required, but it is still fairly common (as is anal sex in straight relationships) and 3) If we know what we`re doing, anal is totally possible without lube. Maybe not recommended, but possible, and even pleasurable.
** Except that the implication is that Ennis even engages in anal sex with his wife; certainly the book has references to them 'doing the thing that she hated' and 'the thing you like to do don't make no babies". Making it look like Ennis is less a repressed homosexual and more a buttsex addict.
*** Depends on who he was thinking about at the time.
*** Isn't Proulx a straight woman? If so, there would be your answer.
* I may be a bit biased (I'm bi and I got very sick very quickly of people who wouldn't accept "I can't stand stories about nothing but angsty relationship melodrama" and "I read the story the movie was based on and hated it" as reasons I had no interest in seeing the movie), but why was this sold as this amazingly gay-positive, daring love story? It's only the same "oh noes, look at the terrible things that happen to you and the people around you when you aren't straight!", BuryYourGays claptrap that's been around in films since the 1950s at least.
** Well, here's the thing: terrible things DO happen to people because they aren't straight, and it sucks. That's the point.
** Given that the plot is more abut the terrible things that happen to you when you deny who you really are, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's {{Aesop}} is BuryYourGays.
*** Eh, I can see what the poster above means. For one thing, it's a bit hard that [[spoiler: the one who's the keenest on not denying his real self is the one who has to die.]] And I felt the two characters had almost nothing in common beside sexual attraction and not even all that much of that - that Ennis, who seemed to be a simply horrible person to everyone who had the misfortune of encountering him, was giving poor Jack major "just not that into you" signals throughout. During the big "I wish I knew how to quit you" speech all I could think was "You do it the same way anyone quits ''anyone'' who is consistently such a total dick to them. And then you go and find a nice, hot man who will be nice to you. It is now the 19-bloody-80s; surely by now you ''must'' have heard that not everywhere in the US is oppressive as your particular part of it and that there ''are'' gay people out there managing to have relationships a hell of a lot better than this one? It may be hard and painful and unfair but it is ''not'' as impossible as you are making it out to be." With such a shallow, unsatisfying relationship as its centre the tragedy feels almost gratuitous, like it had to happen because being gay is OMG just that inherently angsty. Wouldn't the "hiding your true self leads to pain" message be as well or better served if Jack had eventually found a way to sort his life out and move on, whereas Ennis ended up alone in that trailer because he couldn't do the same?
**** Honestly, the way I interpreted it (keeping in mind that I haven't read the original story and I've only seen the movie once), is that [[spoiler:Jack died]] because Ennis was an ass who couldn't admit to what he was, and Jack was seriously into Ennis and so screwed his life over because of the way that his relationship with Ennis was going. The focus is on Ennis's pain at [[spoiler:losing Jack]], not at [[spoiler:Jack's pain at, well, dying]].
* Why did everyone refer to this movie as being about gay cowboys? They were tending to a flock of sheep, that makes the shepherds! And don't give me no lip about one of them working for the rodeo later in the movie, not only does that SO not count as being a cowboy (you mean you had to lasso one cow? My god, all I had to do was drive them across miles and miles of open plain), but when people enthusiastically decree that it's a 'gay cowboy movie,' they're all referring to the beginning bit with tending to the flock, eating beans, living in tents. You know, all the stereotypical cowboy things that shepherds ALSO DID.
** It's the hats.
*** Seconded. Especially outside the US where hardly anyone knows what being a cowboy actually entails since we've never had them and Westerns aren't on telly anymore.
** And maybe the old South Park episode about indie films. "See guys? I told you! All independent films are about gay cowboys eating pudding!"
* What bugs me is that for the most part, the opinions of the movie seem to be completely dichotomized into two camps: the people who love it for being a "daring love story about two star crossed lovers" and those who hate it just because "I ain't no queer god dammit, and if you watch this movie, you're a queer." I watched the movie just so I could say I'd seen it, and because both camps were getting on my nerves before I saw it. My opinion was that ultimately, it was a slow moving, boring, {{Anvilicious}} movie that tried to portray Jake and Ennis as heroes (because [[SarcasmMode cheating's okay when it's true love!]]), and expose society back then as being evil for not accepting them. [[SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped While the last bit is true]], hating someone for who they want to have sex with is incredibly stupid, it doesn't change the fact that this movie really just isn't all that good. It's just plain boring if you ask me. Bigots and moral guardians hated it because the main characters are gay, and critics loved it only ''because'' the moral guardians hated it, because TrueArtIsOffensive.
** You're saying that critics praised the movie ''only because conservatives hated it''? Did you even read any of the reviews? They praised it for the actors' performances, the scope, the cinematography, etc. Not just for the daring content.
*** Additionally, if he thinks everyone fits into "love it" and "hate it because it's gay", he hasn't read the rest of this page. That is, there are plenty of gay/bi people who hate it for being yet another depressing addition to BuryYourGays.
** Brokeback isn't the first movie about gay people, critics didn't love it just for that. It was artsy as heck, which is why many find it boring, but the critics love.
*** Regular people can enjoy artsy films as well, you know?
** The most ludicrous thing I ever heard was when people complained that ''BrokebackMountain'' didn't win the Oscar because of homophobia, considering the fact that the film featured homosexuality was the only reason why it was in a position to be nominated in the first place. No matter how much you like or dislike the film, you have to agree that it wouldn't have gotten any attention if it hadn't been about gay people.
* Why are people so damn Victorian about cheating on this page? Sometimes relationships don't work (especially when orientations don't match). I mena, have none of you ever seen a movie about a man or woman in a loveless marriage who falls for someone new and exiting, and is treated as the one on the right? And I repeat the common argument; it's not like honesty would have been even possible, and this isn't just in story, it's reality even today in many places. Ever heard of the term TheBeard? "Down Low"?
** Because when a relationship doesn't work out, the right thing to do is to end it, not string your spouse along while getting tail on the side. Just because it's commonly done doesn't make it right.
*** I don't think it was right for Jack and Ennis to cheat on their wives - and I doubt the makers of the movie think it was right, either. There's nothing in the film to indicate that their cheating was a morally blameless act. The character played by Michelle Williams, in particular, is depicted very sympathetically - we're meant to feel terrible for her when she sees her husband kiss another man, and has to try to pull herself together. If you want to criticize a movie for glamorizing adultery, there are many, many films that show the protagonist cheating on his/her spouse, without showing anyone getting hurt by it. Brokeback Mountain isn't one of them.
* What bothers me most is many seem to overlook the fact Ennis is abusive.

He has anal sex with Alma despite knowing she hates it; her consent doesn't change the fact he is performing a sex act he knows she doesn't want. In the movie, when he's insisting she take Alma junior, both of their body language make it clear he is bullying her, using the fear of him either causing a scene or physically hurting her to get what he wants. Another movie scene is him chasing her and complaining about dinner, ignoring her reasonable points that they desperately need the money, and the fact she had made dinner. Once she is gone, he turns on his daughters.

He refuses to wear protection during sex, casting her as the villain for not wanting more children, even though she correctly points out they can barely support the two they have. At Thanksgiving, he again casts her as the villain, and then, goes a step further by physically hurting her. Doing so could have caused complications in her pregnancy, not by the damage to her arm/wrist, but by causing a large amount of fear and stress.

In the book, he even expects his daughters to eventually turn against her. For what? Trying her best to convince their father to properly support the family? For trying to help support them while still being the main caregiver? For not wanting to bring any more babies in their house, making it even harder to take proper care of them? For eventually leaving an abusive marriage and marrying someone who is willing to support them and is presumably not emotionally distant to them and domineering towards her?

His treatment of Jack isn't much better. With both he is willing to use emotional and physical abuse to have things as much his way as he can.

Yes, the fact he's presumably in love with Jack does give him some defense. There are plenty of people who know someone they consider a good person who makes the bad choice to cheat. There are people who steal to survive. Being part of an oppressed class or having genuine emotional/psychological issues does make people doing bad things a bit more sympathetic, and they can still come out as a good person who has done things they shouldn't have. However, the line for me is abuse.

Ennis had no right to take his frustrations out on Alma, which at one point he acknowledges, stating that it wasn't her fault he and Jack were in such a screwed-up situation. She tried her best to be a good wife and mother. She loved him and tried her best to make a life with him. She never, to the audience's knowledge, said anything homophobic. Her calling Jack 'Jack Nasty' was due to the fact Jack was the person her husband had been cheating with. Of course, no one deserves abuse. Even if she had been a shrew who had deliberately made his life harder and more miserable, the correct response would have been to leave; abuse still wouldn't have been justified.

There's flawed, and there's a villainous. Jack was the flawed hero of the story, and Ennis was the villain. His sexual orientation/love for Jack had little, if anything, to do with that.
** for sure we knew Ennis is abusive, otherwise what is the point of the fireworks scene?

* Why do people keep using the argument that Ennis was married to prove that he's bisexual/only gay for Jack? Gay men date women all the time, they're called "beards", and it doesn't mean that they're heterosexual. The whole point is two men fell in love in a time where men could not do that... and of course, because one of these men is married (which is what gay men would be expected to do) he's automatically bisexual.

----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

* What bugs me is that for the most part, the opinions of the movie seem to be completely dichotomized into two camps: the people who love it for being a "daring love story about two star crossed lovers" and those who hate it just because "I ain't no queer god dammit, and if you watch this movie, you're a queer." I watched the movie just so I could say I'd seen it, and because both camps were getting on my nerves before I saw it. My opinion was that ultimately, it was a slow moving, boring, {{Anvilicious}} movie that tried to portray Jake and Ennis as heroes (because [[SarcasmMode cheating's okay when it's true love!]]), and expose society back then as being evil for not accepting them. [[SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped While the last bit is true]], [[YouShouldKnowThisAlready hating someone for who they want to have sex with is incredibly stupid]], it doesn't change the fact that this movie really just isn't all that good. It's just plain boring if you ask me. Bigots and moral guardians hated it because the main characters are gay, and critics loved it only ''because'' the moral guardians hated it, because TrueArtIsOffensive.

*** Additionally, if he thinks everyone fits into "love it" and "hate it because they're gay", he hasn't read the rest of this page.