Brokeback as an Anti-Gay Polemic : essay by W.C. Harris

[brokeplex]

Well, my take would be that we rely on Annie Proulx as the final word because it's her story. As a corollary of my dislike of "lit crit," I also dislike critics who think they know more about a work of art than the artist who created it in the first place. Trust me, I've gotten into fearsome debates on this point on this site.  :laugh: But that's just me.

Hi Jeff, I am glad to see that several people have an interest in essay # 9  from "Reading Brokeback Mountain" !

Like all brokies, I too am  interested in AP's insights on how and why she wrote BM. I can't see however the reasons for treating this work as if it exists in a vacuum. No work of art or literature exists entirely in the mind of its creator, otherwise we could not know it. The creation of BM was influenced not only by the input that AP has chosen to share with us, but by any number of possible inputs she may have chosen to withhold from us, or that she may not even be aware of.

Harris for the short story, like Mendelsohn for the film, is simply "fleshing out" those inputs, and the consequences as their existence.

For me it does not diminish the impact or the beauty of BM the story or the film to realize that both have an anti-gay subtext, and also that the film makers and the marketers of the film have deliberately heteronormed both the film and its post-production marketing. We live in a world that is 95% plus heterosexual. We live in a world that finds it difficult to understand much less empathise with the experiences and lives of homosexuals. We live in a world that is still and will remain for some time yet very homophobic. The anti-gay component in allowing the death of Jack in the story line, and in the heteronorming of the lives of the boys in the film are a logical consequence of the marketing this short story and this movie to general audiences. Otherwise, the film would have been a small art house flick, if made at all.

I'd like to quote from a passage by Harris,

"Brokeback is, in fact, eerily descriptive of the present state of gay Americans. What seems troublingly apropos is Ennis del Mar's sense that, outside of the open spaces "up on Brokeback," there is no place in the world he knows for him and Jack Twist to love one another - no place that is not inimical, hostile, murderous. ...gay men are still vilified by the culture - if not outright, then by the bare fact that, regardless of not everyone taking it seriously, pundits and policy makers are still debating whether or not gays and lesbians deserve human rights accorded to the republic's other citizens."

[Jeff Wrangler]

For me it does not diminish the impact or the beauty of BM the story or the film to realize that both have an anti-gay subtext, and also that the film makers and the marketers of the film have deliberately heteronormed both the film and its post-production marketing. We live in a world that is 95% plus heterosexual. We live in a world that finds it difficult to understand much less empathise with the experiences and lives of homosexuals. We live in a world that is still and will remain for some time yet very homophobic. The anti-gay component in allowing the death of Jack in the story line, and in the heteronorming of the lives of the boys in the film are a logical consequence of the marketing this short story and this movie to general audiences. Otherwise, the film would have been a small art house flick, if made at all.

I think there is a difference between creating the story or film and marketing it, and I question whether the two should be lumped together. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that Focus Features deliberately premarketed the film to older women--presumably because they were assumed to be susceptible to a sad love story.

But perhaps what has been eating me for days about all this talk of heteronorming the story or film and making them acceptable to straight audiences is that I don't see these charges as criticizing the work or works of art. No, it's criticizing the artist or artists--and I feel this is wrong. Just plain wrong--not to mention my already clearly stated opinion that both ideas are absurd on the face of it. (I'm trying to be polite here; I might have called them bullshit.  )

For one final time I'll remind readers where "Brokeback Mountain" was first published; a magazine that regularly publishes Paul Rudnick and David Sedaris (who frequently talks about his male partner) does not need to be concerned that gay characters in a story have to end up miserable or dead for the story to be acceptable to its readers. I will also suggest that accusing Larry McMurtry and Diana Osana of heteronorming the story by creating scenes showing Ennis and Jack with their families--scenes that, in Ennis's case at least, are implicit in Annie Proulx's text--argues an ignorance of what is involved in translating a work of art from one medium to another, or a willful ingoring of that just to be provocative and get published.

[Artiste]

You surprise me by your last comment Jeff Wrangler!! May I say!!

And may I add: In a way or many ways, the film is hetero-norming indeed... I find!! I do not see why we can not accept that, especially not talk about that hetero-norming!! The BM film is not a sacred cow!! Neither do I see why we can not view it that way: hetero-norming; at least discuss it, since we are for freedom, and it seems to me that the film tried to free some charaters of it as well as some of us as viewers!! Have the producers, script writers, its directors and actors, etc., did they try enough; not in my book!! Great is never enough!!

I can see many values in the BM film!! I am seeing it as anti-gay as well as pro-gay... for now.

Even if some of us (and I too) see the BM movie as an bible for pro-gay, that bible is still not finished!!

That film can be seen as an essay? So can Annie's boook as an essay?

Hugs to you and to all too!! May we all be positive for gay living!!

[Jeff Wrangler]

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head.  You can analyze the story and the film all you want -- even if you do have a Ph.D. after your name  -- but all this talk about heteronorming, and using tired cliches to appeal to straight audiences, and trying to make the story more profitable, etc. seems less of a critique of the story and film and more of a personal attack on the writer and those who adapted it for the screen.  I think that's wrong, and I don't see any reason to impugn the character of Proulx, McMurtry, Osana, or Lee.  I think they gave us something from their heart, and it seems like a true and honest gift.  If you don't like the gift then fine, but there's no need to slap the person who gave it to you.

Thank you, Gary. That's real nice of you to say so. 

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the way one goes about this sort of thing can make a difference. For example, one could write, "The added scenes showing Ennis and Jack with their wives and children heteronorm the film and make it more acceptable to a wider audience." That's just a statement, an observation and critique about the film; put that way, I'm not even sure I could object to it.

But to write, perhaps, "The scenes added by McMurtry and Osana showing Ennis and Jack with their wives and children heteronorm the film, make it more acceptable to a wider audience, and diminish its significance," in my view, moves from a critique of the film to an attack on the screenwriters, and this I think is wrong.

[moremojo]

Some have said they don't understand why Jack had to die.  Well, I hate the fact that Jack died, too.  But as I said in my earlier post, I think Jack had to die so that Ennis could finally accept Jack's love.  I seriously doubt that if Jack left Ennis this would have done anything other than shove Ennis further into the closet, and make him hate himself all the more.  Ennis feels the world despises him, and becasue of that he despises himself.  But there is one countervailing influence to all this in his life, and that's Jack.  If Jack had reject him what hope would there have been for Ennis?

This is an excellent observation, Gary. In all his isolation and loneliness, Ennis at the end at least realizes that he has known true and fully reciprocal love. It is very possible that he may never have known this had Jack merely quit him and moved on. Jack's death can even be seen as an unintended sacrifice that enables Ennis to become truly aware of who and what he is...one of the greatest attainments of an examined life.

[Artiste]

Thanks all of you!!

Gaycottle, you say: No film or story is perfect, or perfectly suited for an individual's tastes or needs.
......

So may I say that the BM movie is therefore, as I see it for now, one which is a bit too much hetero!!
Some viewers even do call the two main charaters (Ennis and Jack) hetero men !!

At least the film is a start to help gay men and others?? !!

Much can be said. The BM movie is possibly our first somewhat sacred cow for many gay men, including myself!! Maybe that is just wishfull thinking on my part??

There are more and more anti-gay issues or ways (or something like that) that I see in it, however. Is that hetero-norming the film writers or director did??

Many questions remain to be asked and to be answered. One must keep an open mind... like you all say. The movie rings some freedom, but for whom mostly: for straights, for ladies, for bi-s, for gays, for children, for society in general???

I hope and pray that is it not mainly for violence or for homophobia to become worst in our so-called civilisations!! ??

Awaiting your news,
hugs!!  May we allon Earth be helped by the Brokeback Mountain movie in wondrous ways!!

[Luvlylittlewing]

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head.  You can analyze the story and the film all you want -- even if you do have a Ph.D. after your name  -- but all this talk about heteronorming, and using tired cliches to appeal to straight audiences, and trying to make the story more profitable, etc. seems less of a critique of the story and film and more of a personal attack on the writer and those who adapted it for the screen.  I think that's wrong, and I don't see any reason to impugn the character of Proulx, McMurtry, Osana, or Lee.  I think they gave us something from their heart, and it seems like a true and honest gift.  If you don't like the gift then fine, but there's no need to slap the person who gave it to you.

Artisti said, "The BM film is not a sacred cow."  That's true.  And no one is saying you have to like it in whole, or in every part or aspect.  No film or story is perfect, or perfectly suited for an individual's tastes or needs.  All of life is ambiguous.  You are free to talk about your reactions and thoughts concerning the story and film, and you're entitled to your opinion.  But so am I.  And I loved BBM and I don't think it's anti gay.     

 

Very well said, Gary.  I have been following this thread for 2 days now, and I agree with everything you and Jeff have said.  I am straight and I think its wrong to say that straight people couldn't identify with BBM without showing both men with their wives and kids.  I think this is just wrong.

[Oregondoggie]

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head.  You can analyze the story and the film all you want -- even if you do have a Ph.D. after your name  -- but all this talk about heteronorming, and using tired cliches to appeal to straight audiences, and trying to make the story more profitable, etc. seems less of a critique of the story and film and more of a personal attack on the writer and those who adapted it for the screen.  I think that's wrong, and I don't see any reason to impugn the character of Proulx, McMurtry, Osana, or Lee.  I think they gave us something from their heart, and it seems like a true and honest gift.  If you don't like the gift then fine, but there's no need to slap the person who gave it to you.

Right on!  The structure of the story, the power of the tragedy, would be destroyed, ruined, without the death of Jack.  No trip to Lightning Flat by Ennis and no discovering the shirts.  The whole story is enfolded in those shirts, imprinted in blood.  They are Veronica's veil, as it were.

Secondly, if Jack had simply left Ennis and were living, with or without Randall, I doubt if the panel of the dream would slide forward that opens the short story.  Nor would Jack begin to appear in the dreams at the end of the story, after he finds the shirts.

Sorry W.C. Harris, Brokeback Mountain is not an anti-gay polemic.  You've just got to stand it, Boy.

[ifyoucantfixit]

     I think this story is a gay story true enough...But it has so much more than that.  It takes all parts of it
to make the impact so strong. When you claim it is just that, it  does a disservice to every one of the people
that are not gay that fell in love with it as well.  I am one of those people.  I can say there are so many layers
to that story, that you can after two years, still find new depths to the meanings in it.
      I am sorry that those that want to claim it for a gay only entity.  They demean all that they may recieve, in
its other ways as well.  It is a very powerful statement of human condition.  It has love and pain and the whole
damn thing in there.  Its not a story to try and say gays are better or worse than anyone else.  I think it is
just telling a story about two beautiful young men, that fell in love.  The pain and sorrow it shows them going
through, is making us see how things should be and could be better for all.  If people could just leave love
to work itself out.  Without, all the negative outside issues other people bring to bear on that love.  Let be, let be.
        I get frustrated  at folks that are unhappy with it not being gay enough.  Or it being too shocking, or not
sympathetic enough to Jack, or Ennis.  Or not paying off the mean people, like Aguirre...It can not in the time frame of a short story or movie, tell every little issue that they wish to cover completely...It opens the
little windows, and moves on, leaving you the ability to look further, if you have the inclination to do so.
It is never going to answer all the questions, or be militant enough for some...And for others it is too militant, and shoving something in their face.
         It is a beautiful piece of fiction and a wonderful film.  Amazingly rendered by the writers, the film makers and the beautiful actors.  It came together at a specific time and place, and built a piece that will live forever.
It is a glorious entity, and we should appreciate it for what it does...not tear it down for what we think it
didn't do, that we as individuals might like to have seen differently.....That is selfish in my estimation.
         I suppose I need to clarify, better.  I too feel that Jack had to die.  I think he was the savior that Ennis
may be redeemed.  I have stated this in other threads before..There are so many references to him being the good shephard...Carrying the sheep on his shoulders, and crossing over the symbolic and literal river...With the
weight on his shoulders, is to me the most obvious.  His helping the lamb with the thorn, and many more that are obvious portrayals...  Without his death, the entirety would have been rather meaningless.  He offered himself up, both figuratively and literally for Ennis's salvation.
          Sorry if this steps on any toes.. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

The sheer variety of people, regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation, who have fallen in love with this film and this story, who have had their lives touched and changed and enriched by this film and this story, and who participate in this community as a result of this film and this story, is proof enough of the universal appeal of both "Brokeback Mountain" the story and Brokeback Mountain the film, any academic critic to the contrary notwithstanding.