Howdy!
I know I make very infrequent visits 'round here... but I had something I wanted to share.
Every now and again, I'll update this teacher that I had in high school on how I'm doing. She was
the reason I passed my Algebra II course. She spent a lot of time with me during my senior year helping me to do well in it. Sadly, though, we are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. She's extremely conservative and against gay marriage. But since I haven't spoken to her in 18 months, I briefly referenced by having gotten in touch with a Pierre Tremblay. She was impressed that I contacted someone in the film industry (she's aware of my love for film) but reminded me that it wasn't really something she would see.
Though I probably shouldn't have... I responded... and this is what I said...
In regards to Brokeback Mountain, I do feel obligated to squelch the myths! I must admit that I'm disappointed that you've opted not to see it. Sadly, I think it had a lot of phrases and "imagery" attached to it that would lead to false impressions of what the film entailed.
I think the one thing that people thought of when they heard of the film was what is, in actuality, a very miniscule scene. It's literally less than thirty seconds long, and it's in the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, where you don't see anything -- it's pretty much implied. As a matter of fact, the twenty-some second scene in question is almost entirely pitch black and relies solely on its audio track. (The film is almost void of nudity; there's maybe two minutes total, and almost all of the two minutes is either non-sexual -- read: bathing -- or female nudity.) As for the rest of the film, the entire story revolves around the fact that the boys aren't together. The primary theme is actually what happens when you're trying to be something you're not. What people think the film is... it is far from it... logically speaking, due to the time and place of the setting (1960's Wyoming, c'mon)... it can't be that.
Religion and politics aside, however, I must also reinforce the notion that it only garnered the acclaim due to its subject matter is purely absurd. It's absolutely beautifully filmed and is done exquisitely, and had it not been, it would have been another unheard of indie film. Ang Lee isn't some run-of-the-mill filmmaker. Just five years prior, he had done the critically acclaimed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and five years prior to that, the critically acclaimed adaptation of Sense & Sensibility.
I guess what I'm saying is: you can't judge a book by its cover, eh? I doubt I've in any way persuaded your interest in seeing it... despite how much I would like to... but perhaps it'd make me feel better to know that you aren't seeing it for what it is, as opposed to not seeing it for what it isn't (which is the overused generalization of "the gay cowboy movie"). I suppose that maybe the generalization came about from the people who couldn't as easily overlook that aspect.
But if you should happen to reconsider, you're always welcome to borrow one of my copies! I must conclude, though, that it's a real shame that people would feel compelled to distance themselves from my generation's Casablanca.
Always,
David