Brokeback Review

[21st_medici]

Sad and reflective, I emerged from the theater after Brokeback Mountain. It's a great film. As a piece of art, it's just great. The pacing is damn near perfect, the panoramic views are very Chinese (and very good), and the acting was uniformly convincing. And, yes, the sex between the two cowboys was fun to watch... but that really seemed

Comments

[tangled_up_in_]

Your response to the film suggests that you think that "gay" as an identity is, erm, identical to enjoying the physical act of male-male sex. I wonder about that. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about men who did not self-identify as "gay," but who stated that they liked fucking men. (Alas, I don't recall whether the article addressed these men's sexual interest, or lack thereof, in women.) It seems to me that this raises the question of to what extent someone's preference for sex with a particular gender should be read as their identity. Thoughts?

[21st_medici]

Sexual desire and identity certainly aren't the same thing, but I think they usually should be. Certainly these characters -- and those men featured in the article -- put psychological distance between themselves and us "queers." But I think that's an artificial barrier that most of them use because they haven't yet come to terms with their desire and, frankly, who they really are.

I'm not saying there's only one way to be gay. But we're all in this together, whether we call ourselves "queer" or not. A man who labels himself "gay" is just as likely to get the shit beat out of him for fucking men as is the man who doesn't label himself that way. The actions, and the reactions, are overwhelmingly the same, so I personally think that men who have sex with men and say they're not gay are still in denial... or still suffering self-hatred.

Maybe deep down I'm Marxist. It's a matter of class interest. No matter how much we try to distance ourselves and say we're "normal," it's there.

damned login

[tangled_up_in_]

Sorry. I thought I was logged in. Here's that comment again

Sensible and understandable

[21st_medici]

But I would agrue that homosexuality (or bisexuality) is defined by a single social act, so it's difficult to make it a purely private thing. Sure, this can be just between two strangers and now (thanks to gay.com) a person can hide that act from the world. But in the time portrayed in this film, there were no computer screens to hide behind. If these men wanted to engage in that prohibited social act, they had to rely on visual signs made in public in order to attract a partner for that act. So, yes, visual markers are what separate those who get bashed from those who don't. But, except for those who only fuck internet-strangers, the preliminary step to homosexuality requires setting up some visual cues. That puts everyone in this group -- even bisexuals, who are taking part in the same prohibited act, at least sometimes -- at risk. Common interest is still there.

Even if a person is able to separate the private act from the visual markers of his group (which I agree are constructed for possibly-biological reasons), it's an

[tomasa]

I think you really need to get a job, get out. I mean good review but.....

The talkshow Dad was listening to said "parents beware of brokeback mountain" Then they went into an interview where George Clooney said as a film maker he isn't giving answers, he's ASKING QUESTIONS.. hehehe
I mean, it's only a movie.

Yer darn right!

[21st_medici]

Need a job. Big time.

I hope you (and Tom and even your parents!) get to see Brokeback. It's a good film that presents gay love in a way that might challenge some preconceptions. :)

p.s. Need a job!!