Author Topic: The true reason  (Read 33609 times)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: The true reason
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2006, 07:03:33 pm »
Maybe she should have called it "emotional erotica." ;)

That works. Though there's a physical aspect to it, too ...  ;)

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: The true reason
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2006, 07:50:22 pm »
I thought the article was very good. And, after reading the quote in context, I think it's apropos.
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: The true reason
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2006, 09:57:06 pm »
Oopsie.  She.  Sorry about that.

I just read the whole article.  Twice.  And I still don't think she gets it.  I don't think she misses it completely, either.  But it's like she's missing the target but hitting the (very large) tree.

The emoting Jack and Ennis do, first of all, is practically never in front of one another - the exceptions being "Sometimes I miss you so much..." and Ennis' breakdown at the lake.  So if anything, we straight women are only reminded of our own screwed-up relationships with certain straight men and how those bastards never *really* talked to us, either.

How can we see anything we long for in the way they don't talk or emote to one another?  Sure, we see what we long for in their passion and deep love for each other in the infamous tent, reunion, and flashback scenes.  But gay men must experience that on the same or similar level, too.  And she's not talking about that - she's talking about Ennis' vomiting and Jack's crying.  That they do *alone.*

To me, she seems to be saying that we straight women love the film because it shows men feeling things for each other that we wished they felt (and showed) for us.  I just think that's crap.  (Now, if she were saying it's because it shows two *particular* men feeling things for each other that we wish one or both of them would feel specifically for us, that'd be another story.  ;))

Seriously, first of all, she seems to have missed the fact that these guys almost never show what they're feeling to each other directly.  What good is our guys feeling that amount of passion for us if they almost never tell us about it or show it to us?  Yeah.  I *so want* to go through that again.   ::)

Yes, I'm on a hair-trigger about such things lately, I know, but I can't help but see her view as being more than a little biased.  I mean, why should this movie be any more of a draw for straight women in general than any other beautiful love story ever filmed?  I honestly don't think it is.  If it were, every red-blooded woman we all know who usually likes such stories would have seen it by now.  And every one who has would be a Brokie.




« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 09:59:02 pm by ednbarby »
No more beans!

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: The true reason
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2006, 11:16:49 pm »
OK, now that the Meghan Daum article is getting all controversial, I had to go back and read it. I've read it before, but not for months.

First of all, remember that she wrote this in January, not long after the movie came out. She had apparently seen it only once. And her objective was not to thoroughly analyze Jack and Ennis to see if they're good boyfriend material. As far as I can tell, what she was trying to do is explain why a movie that many people expected to appeal mainly to gay men could be equally appealing to women.

The emoting Jack and Ennis do, first of all, is practically never in front of one another - the exceptions being "Sometimes I miss you so much..." and Ennis' breakdown at the lake. So if anything, we straight women are only reminded of our own screwed-up relationships with certain straight men and how those bastards never *really* talked to us, either.

Well, I'd add the reunion and TS2, but that's beside the point. I agree with you, Barb, that they don't communicate their feelings well to each other.

But I don't think Meghan Daum is saying they do, necessarily. Her main point, as I understand it, is that they show romantic emotions period, when we rarely see straight male movie characters or maybe even real-life men do that.

IMO, she's right. How many straight men in movies can you name who, after a fight with their girlfriend, stagger into an alley and collapse in despair? I can count the number on zero fingers. Crying as they drive away from a girlfriend who has rejected them? I might have to use a few fingers, but probably not a whole hand. Waiting all day with their face pressed against the window for their girlfriend to show up? I've still got plenty of leftover fingers.

In real life, men undoubtedly do those things from time to time, but they're not really known for it. So yeah, here Daum is using a cliche. But it's a cliche with a grain of truth. I think women do, as a general rule, get more emotional about their relationships. Here, Jack and Ennis are getting emotional about their romantic relationship -- they're not expressing it to each other, but they're expressing it to the audience.

Quote
(Now, if she were saying it's because it shows two *particular* men feeling things for each other that we wish one or both of them would feel specifically for us, that'd be another story.  ;))

Well, I'd say she does kind of hint at that, too.  ;)

Quote
I can't help but see her view as being more than a little biased.  I mean, why should this movie be any more of a draw for straight women in general than any other beautiful love story ever filmed?  I honestly don't think it is.

It may not actually be more of a draw for straight women than any other love story -- obviously many more straight women saw "Titanic." And for some straight women, BBM would be harder to like for an number of reasons. But I don't think Daum was going so far as to say straight women like it more than any other movie; I think she was simply explaining why straight women like it at all.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it should be more of a draw, becaue it's much better than any other love story I've ever seen. Not only because of this factor, but it's one of the reasons. So I guess my view is more than a little biased, too. But then, we already knew that!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 01:27:40 am by latjoreme »

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: The true reason
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2006, 09:14:09 am »
OK, now that the Meghan Daum article is getting all controversial, I had to go back and read it. I've read it before, but not for months.

First of all, remember that she wrote this in January, not long after the movie came out. She had apparently seen it only once. And her objective was not to thoroughly analyze Jack and Ennis to see if they're good boyfriend material. As far as I can tell, what she was trying to do is explain why a movie that many people expected to appeal mainly to gay men could be equally appealing to women.

Well, I'd add the reunion and TS2, but that's beside the point. I agree with you, Barb, that they don't communicate their feelings well to each other.

But I don't think Meghan Daum is saying they do, necessarily. Her main point, as I understand it, is that they show romantic emotions period, when we rarely see straight male movie characters or maybe even real-life men do that.

IMO, she's right. How many straight men in movies can you name who, after a fight with their girlfriend, stagger into an alley and collapse in despair? I can count the number on zero fingers. Crying as they drive away from a girlfriend who has rejected them? I might have to use a few fingers, but probably not a whole hand. Waiting all day with their face pressed against the window for their girlfriend to show up? I've still got plenty of leftover fingers.

I understand her point about men.  But I think she misses the point of the movie.  Ennis collapses in an alley not only because he's overwhelmed with romantic feelings, but because he's been forced most of his life to repress romantic feelings so far down in himself that it actually affects his physical characteristics.  Ennis waits with his face pressed to a window all day for his lover not only because he wants him so much, but because he's been in a passionless, loveless marriage for four years because society and he himself convinced himself he had  to.

I do understand her point.  But I think she's trivializing the movie and its impact by making it.

And I have seen movies where straight male characters act that romantic.  To name a few:  Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, An Officer and a Gentelman, Pretty Woman, Say Anything, Witness, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Emma, The Graduate, ..., I could go on all day.  The kicker is that they're *allowed* to act that romantic - audiences cheer when they do.  I'm just saying there is more of a universal appeal to this movie than one that is just for gay men and straight women.  I think anyone open-minded enough to see it can help but be drawn in a) by the storytelling and b) by the universal truths about what the damage denial does.  I guess it just irritated me that she thought the answer was so black and white when we all know there's so much more to it than that.


[/quote]
No more beans!

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: The true reason
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2006, 10:53:55 am »
Barb, I guess we just read the piece really differently. The way I read it, it's an op-ed column examining one aspect of a much-talked-about and much-misunderstood movie, trying to explain why -- contrary to popular belief at the time -- straight women might find it as appealing as everybody already assumes gay men do.

I didn't think of Daum as intending to present a thorough analysis of the whole movie. She's not writing a review.  So she doesn't try to interpret the movie's overall themes. She's a fairly astute person, judging from other things I've read of hers -- her background is as a novelist and literary essayist, writing for the New Yorker and other publications -- so I'm guessing she understood them, but who knows.

For the purposes of this piece, she's not concerned with why Ennis collapses in an alley or waits by the window. If she were discussing the plot, she'd probably mention his emotional repression and loveless marriage (and many other things). I don't think she's claiming that Ennis' expression of emotion shows he is good at communication or mentally healthy. As I read it, all she's saying is that it's refreshing to see men in movies show emotion, period.

Quote
And I have seen movies where straight male characters act that romantic.  To name a few:  Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, An Officer and a Gentelman, Pretty Woman, Say Anything, Witness, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Emma, The Graduate

Yes, those movies feature straight men acting romantic. But do they act as emotional? Do they collapse and vomit in alleys? True, they love their romantic partner. They show longing and tenderness and sadness, go to great lengths on behalf of the woman, etc. But as a rule (and I realize there are many exceptions) they stay "strong" and in control, rarely distraught and vulnerable.

As a kid, I was a huge fan of Gone With the Wind (before I got old enough to be horrified by its racism). Rhett Butler cries only once in that movie, and that's when Scarlett, after a fall down the stairs while pregnant, is hovering on the brink of death. Apparently Clark Gable came close to quitting the movie over having to do that scene. Olivia de Havilland said, in an interview after his death, that she had to talk him into staying. He didn't think it was masculine to cry.

In all the other pivotal moments, Rhett remains stoic, often even bemused. The one other time he gets really emotional -- when he gets angry over Scarlett's continuing attraction to Ashley -- he expresses it by getting drunk and commiting spousal rape (though afterward she doesn't mind). At the end of the movie, Rhett is dry-eyed and Scarlett is sobbing.

Anyway, though, we already know that those other movies appeal to women. Nobody has to write an op-ed piece explaining why. I think Meghan Daum intended simply to show why BBM does, too.

Quote
I'm just saying there is more of a universal appeal to this movie than one that is just for gay men and straight women.  I think anyone open-minded enough to see it can help but be drawn in a) by the storytelling and b) by the universal truths about what the damage denial does.

I absolutely agree about the storytelling and universal truths. But I don't think Daum contradicts this; it just wasn't what she was trying to discuss in this particular piece.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 12:34:34 pm by latjoreme »

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: The true reason
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2006, 02:31:34 pm »
That's cool, Katherine.  No worries.  It being an op-ed piece, she can state whatever opinion she'd like, of course.  And I do agree with it to some extent.  I think it's natural for straight women to enjoy seeing vulnerability in men on a certain level - it makes us feel closer to them in a way we don't usually get to.  I get that.  I just think her choice of words and arguments in a couple of cases kinda turned me off is all.
No more beans!

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: The true reason
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2006, 02:57:06 pm »
I just think her choice of words and arguments in a couple of cases kinda turned me off is all.

OK, that happens. No worries here, either! People read things different ways. I just wanted to explain what I thought she was trying to do. There are already enough idiots out there dissing our movie, so I figured, here's somebody praising it in the country's second-biggest newspaper, maybe we should give her a break.

Fun debating it, though! It's an interesting topic. One of so many this movie inspires.

 :-*


Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: The true reason
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2006, 08:05:28 pm »
This is way OT … but I had to mention something, just because I am a lover of films from the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s. (BBM is really the first contemporary movie I have loved …. or at least this degree … period.)

As a kid, I was a huge fan of Gone With the Wind (before I got old enough to be horrified by its racism). Rhett Butler cries only once in that movie, and that's when Scarlett, after a fall down the stairs while pregnant, is hovering on the brink of death. Apparently Clark Gable came close to quitting the movie over having to do that scene. Olivia de Havilland said, in an interview after his death, that she had to talk him into staying. He didn't think it was masculine to cry.

In all the other pivotal moments, Rhett remains stoic, often even bemused. The one other time he gets really emotional -- when he gets angry over Scarlett's continuing attraction to Ashley -- he expresses it by getting drunk and commiting spousal rape (though afterward she doesn't mind). At the end of the movie, Rhett is dry-eyed and Scarlett is sobbing.

Just humor me on this, please. I know this was not your intent, but I wanted to share this anyway.

I wanted to just say a few things about GWTW and other movies from this time period. I try to look at the racism in a few different ways ….
1.   The world view was very different at that time
2.   There was no such thing as political correctness
3.   Rarely were African-Americans represented in a light that emphasized their intelligence. I am not saying that was a good thing. On the contrary,It was a really horrible thing.  I am just saying that it is the way it was …) There were a couple of exceptions like “Imitation of Life” in both the 1930s and 1950s versions. The change really started in the late 50’s with the brilliant Sidney Poitier who refused to play stereotypical black roles.

It was this movie, GWTW, that had the first black actor/ actress to win an Oscar (to even be nominated, as a matter of fact). The fabulous Hattie McDaniel was the first to break through that barrier. It was no small feat since it was during a time where racism was very prevalent. I get a kick out of Hattie because she was a strong and opinionated woman. She used to say that she got a lot of grief from the black community because she often played housekeepers or cooks. Her response was, “I’d rather play a housekeeper than be a housekeeper.”

Another issue that is often brought up from this time period is the violence/ dominance of the male leads towards the female leads. (This was something you referenced  … when Rhett threatens to crush Scarlett’s scull and then commits spousal rape. The points that I made in regards to racism (from the same time period) are the same for the depiction of violence towards women. Clark Gable’s roles were notoriously controlling, demeaning and violent towards women. In today’s world, we gasp in horror about how the women were treated by the testosterone driven males. Again, I am not condoning violence towards women … not at all. But, during that time period, women found a controlling and somewhat violent male lead as extremely sexy and erotic.

So, in a long-winded way, I am saying that classic films almost always have elements that make us cringe today. But that does not negate the importance or the likeability of any given film. i.e. a person need not feel guilty about loving a film that could not be made the same way today …. such as GWTW. You have every right not to love it …. but  it need not be based solely on how a character is portrayed.

That’s my opinion …. “for what it’s worth …”
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline silkncense

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
  • "It's alright; 's alright."
Re: The true reason
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2006, 09:58:35 pm »
Quote
why should this movie be any more of a draw for straight women in general than any other beautiful love story ever filmed?  I honestly don't think it is.  If it were, every red-blooded woman we all know who usually likes such stories would have seen it by now.  And every one who has would be a Brokie.


I agree with this.  I do not think the draw for women (or gay men for that matter) is the romantic story it portrays exclusively.  For me, the impact was ultimately about fear & regret & that transcends many areas of peoples lives.  The love story is the vehicle that carries the message (and what a beautiful vehicle to carry us along).

Another thing that isn't true for me personally.  EVERYONE knows how I feel about the message & movie of Brokeback Mountain.  I think it is an important message for everyone & I have tried (unsuccessfully often) to convince very religious individuals, Christian, Jewish & Muslim to see this film & to try to understand the underlying message of love, fear & regret & that it affects all people.
"……when I think of him, I just can't keep from crying…because he was a friend of mine…"