Another Brokeback Mountain Update

There are none so blind . . ."

Gene Shalit seems to have put his foot in it. This is from the GLAAD Action Alert:

In the piece, Shalit refers to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."

Excuse me? Yes, we can certainly see that, now can't we -- especially in the reunion scene, when Ennis can't keep his hands off Jack.

Shalit has obviously got some problems he doesn't want to deal with.

Andy Towle at Towleroad has a link to the video clip, because I'm too lazy to copy it here.

David Kupelian, at WingNut Daily, is really so far over the edge that it's hard to read his "review" without laughing out loud. No, it's not hard -- it's impossible.

Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain."

Gee -- the story's really about Alma. How did I miss that? (See below for my comments on people who criticize art for what it's not about.)

These people are so completely out of it that I'm surprised they have an audience. Kupelian's piece is really pathetic. Embarrassingly so.

On the other side, Ross, posting at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, does get it -- almost. His conclusions stopped me cold -- yeah, well, he almost got it. He started to lose me at this point:

To a certain extent, the drama of the movie necessitates this kind of contrast, but it's significant, I think, that the film doesn't offer any model of successful heterosexual masculinity, or of successful heterosexual relationships in general.

Of course, the first response is, the movie is about two men falling in love. Why should it be at pains to present successful heterosexual relationships? That's completely insignificant, and irrelevant. (But then, that seems to be a prevailing characteristic of Sullivan and his guests anyway.) Works of art, unlike civil rights bills, don't have to include everyone. Ross rails against Lee's use of "dark stereotypes" in depicting Ennis' married life. Hey, SFB: the whole point is, this is what Ennis has made of his married life because he's afraid the make the decision to follow his heart. He got married because he was supposed to. If he wanted it, it was only because he thought he was supposed to want it. A word to the blind: the whole friggin' movie is from Ennis' viewpoint -- it's not an objective reality, dumb shit.

As I recall, Sullivan himself was also somewhat lukewarm about the film. But then, Sullivan is generally tepid about most things, except Iraq and torture. It's hard to know if it's genuine reservation or the pose of being an East Coast intellectual. Maybe by this time he's actually internalized the whole thing.

That's the problem with political commentators weighing in on art -- they don't get it, really, and tend to wander off on tangents, criticizing a work because of what it's not about (see Kupelian's laughable exercise). As I said early on, of course there's a political aspect of this film -- there can't help but be, especially in the current climate. That aspect, I think, is imposed, not intrinsic. The gods know Lee is under no obligation to fit the political agendas of the guys at Andrew Sullivan (or anywhere else). It surprises me (maybe not so much, actually) that anyone with a blog can weigh in on artistic merits, whether or not they have a clue as to what they're talking about. Maybe that's why the arts are in such bad shape in this country.

One could also pose the giant-killer question: just what is a model of successful heterosexual masculinity, and is there even such a thing as "heterosexual masculinity"? It's not that I think the terms are mutually exclusive, which is the flip side of what could be Ross' subtext (Lee presents homosexual masculinity, but we all know that homosexuals are not masculine, so where are the real men?), I just don't think they inhabit the same universe. There is masculinity, however one wants to conceptualize it, and there is sexual orientation, and the two don't really have much to do with each other. (In fact, a psychologist would say they have nothig to do with each other.) Jack and Ennis are prototypically masculine. I've known self-identified gay men like that, masculine in that traditional, cast-in-the-mold sense, because that's the way they were raised. Aside from being sexy as hell, they had some of the same problems Ennis had, the same problems that straight men have: opening up, letting themselves feel, acknowledging what they feel, screwing up their lives because they don't know who they are. Whether it's straight or gay, it's the same syndrome, and outside of a very restricted life, it's just barely functional. Take that as another message of the film.

But, the momentum is building:

Another big release -- 120 new theaters, and getting great reception.

In the meantime, the film has picked up another boatload of award nominations. Four nominations from SAG (Best actor, best supporting actor and actress, best ensemble), and more from the director's and writer's guilds. And these, after all, are the people who should know.

(Have you noticed that the major contenders at the Oscars this year look to be Brokeback, Capote, and Transamerica? Think about that,)

Dave Cullen is another Brokeback groupie. Lots of links, including to blogs, news, etc.

And of course, you can always check out towleroad (he's over in the sidebar, under "Interesting People").

I've been getting a lot of interesting correspondence about all sorts of things, so look for some good stuff coming up.

Later. . . . I have to go write many, many reviews. Check out Green Man Review and Rambles for new stuff. Now if someone would just pay me for it.