« Durn You, WSJ | Main | Saints, forthcoming »
December 20, 2005
The Brokeback Mountain Post
Well, almost everyone has put their two cents in, so here goes.
I haven't seen it, don't plan to, but I did see the SNL parody Brokeback Goldmine, which was purty durn funny.
Do you remember the snickering at the trailer I mentioned? This is evidently a national phenomenon, worthy of a notice in the NYTimes, which asks forthrightly, "Why are audiences laughing at this trailer?"
Mickey Kaus tells why he's not interested and then discusses Frank Rich's piece on why this will surely be a breakout movie here - scroll down a bit. Ah, for permalinks. Ann Althouse has a critique and vigorous discussion going.
Now for the religious:
Jimmy Akin dissects the controversy about the USCCB review, and the change in the rating from "L" to "O" last week (a change which Andrew Sullivan, as is his wont, blames on the Pope, in this snort-worthy post:
Well, the Vatican was not pleased. And so the review has been changed. The rating given originally was "L" for "appropriate for limited adult audiences". The new rating is "O" for morally offensive. The reviewer's name has been taken off the review. The theocon website, a conduit for the most reactionary forces in the Church, i.e. Benedict, Neuhaus, et al., exults here.
"The theocon website?" Benedict and Neuhaus will undoubtedly be surprised at their new conduit - Lifesite.)
The Christianity Today review which Jeffrey Overstreet praises here.
And finally, the very fine review by Steven Greydanus of Decent Films. USCCB are you listening? Chuck the current staff and hire this guy. He just gets better and better.
He does the very valuable service of comparing the film to inarguable agitprop like The Magdalene Sisters and The Cider House Rules. Here's his conclusion, which is pretty stunning:
In the end, in its easygoing, nonpolemical way, Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than a critique not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself. It’s a jaundiced portrait of maleness in crisis — a crisis extending not only to the sexual identities of the two central characters, but also to the validity of manhood as exemplified by every other male character in the film. It may be the most profoundly anti-western western ever made, not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.
And finally again, thanks to a commentor, take a look at Victor Morton's review. Morton and Greydanus doing movie reviews for the USCCB. Good deal. I'm not going to excerpt, because Victor's post isn't just a review, it's a wide-ranging essay about the purpose of film criticism in a moral context, the relationship between art, life and morality, and an account of His Dinner with David (Morrison.) Go read.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8349c099f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Brokeback Mountain Post:
Comments
When Andrew Sullivan calls Pope Benedict "among the most reactionary forces" in the Church, what does he call the Sedevacantists, etc? It just shows me that he has zero training in philosophy or theology - I have been studying the writings of Ratzinger/Benedict and Pope John Paul II for years, and I find them "radical" in the best sense - BOTH returning deeply to the roots of Scripture and tradition AND visioning things like moral theology, liturgical thinking, etc. in sometimes new and exceptionally startling ways.
As for Brokeback Mountain - Frank Rich in the NY Times naturally praised it to the skies and beyond, and used words like "fatwa" and "Ayatollah" to describe Christians and their likely response. Wonder what he'd call his OWN response to films like the Passion, were he to read them behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance!"
Posted by: mary at Dec 20, 2005 10:21:34 AM
Might be worth taking a look at Victor Morton's lengthy treatment of the film.
Posted by: Mark Adams at Dec 20, 2005 10:30:42 AM
I haven't seen it, although I want to, if for no other reason than Ang Lee directed (I've been a fan of his for many years, when he was still doing Chinese stuff). The review that Amy posted is also thought-provoking. I had not thought much about the "masculinity" angle, but this seems quite interesting. How ironic that many who lambast this movie seem to have no moral problems with movies that equate masculinity with vainglory and violence. Peronally, I find some of Schwarzenneger's movies more "morally offensive" than this one.
Posted by: Tony A at Dec 20, 2005 10:41:41 AM
I had a similar thought to Victor's. It might be instructive to compare this film to another one of Ang Lee's--The Ice Storm.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119349/
Although it frankly dealt with marital infidelity and sexual experimentation in an early 1970s American suburbia, it hardly seemed to be an bald apologia for these things.
Posted by: David at Dec 20, 2005 10:46:23 AM
I feel comfortable prejudging this movie based on my own belief that Hollywood isn't intellectually honest enough to sing the praises of a movie that was anything but a propaganda piece for homosexuality.
Posted by: ken at Dec 20, 2005 12:00:17 PM
The video was purty durn funny.
Posted by: Fr. Phil Bloom at Dec 20, 2005 12:06:27 PM
As I found out in proto-furry fandom: Homosexuality is Veh-ry Fah-shionable. (And it's corollary -- "Straights NOT Welcome!")
P.S. KFI radio (morning drive-time in Los Angeles) filked the title into Bareback Mountain. Pass it on. Start a meme.
P.P.S. South Park's Gift of Prophecy: One South Park episode about a highbrow film festival prophesied "All these indie art films are about two gay cowboys eating pudding."
Posted by: Ken at Dec 20, 2005 12:24:51 PM
Ken:
One of the sports radio stations in Detroit did the same rewrite last Friday. They also had another version that is even less fit for family reading.
Posted by: Dale Price at Dec 20, 2005 12:26:47 PM
Ken! You said filk!
So are you one of the fen named Ken who I know, or one of the fen named Ken who I don't know? :)
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Dec 20, 2005 12:37:42 PM
How about "Bareback Mount'em"?
Posted by: thomas tucker at Dec 20, 2005 12:49:26 PM
Victor Morton's complete review is brilliant and is a necessary critique of Aiken who doesn't understand the purpose of film narrative as the communication of significant human experience.
Would that Morton and Greydanus were reviewing for the bishops.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Dec 20, 2005 1:10:53 PM
As one who lived among Wyoming cowboys for several years, I wonder whether the movie will be shown in the state. As for Andrew Sullivan, oh well, he's just being Andrew. As for Rich, he needs to get a life.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Dec 20, 2005 1:43:19 PM
Aaron McGruder's "The Boondocks" comics related to the film were absolutely great comedy.
Posted by: Fr. Shawn O'Neal at Dec 20, 2005 1:44:20 PM
It's funny that so many pop-culture takes of the movie have been mocking it. I've heard Letterman mock it, too. It's interesting to see that even as the film community slobbers over this film, a degree of distaste for homosexuality, or at least for in-your-face homosexuality still does exist even among shows that have a fairly high (SNL) or extremely high (South Park) sexual content. (Or in Letterman's case, a show that is fairly clean but a private life that leaves a lot to be desired.)
Posted by: James Kabala at Dec 20, 2005 2:06:37 PM
It's funny that so many pop-culture takes of the movie have been mocking it. I've heard Letterman mock it, too. It's interesting to see that even as the film community slobbers over this film, a degree of distaste for homosexuality, or at least for in-your-face homosexuality, still does exist even among shows that have a fairly high (SNL) or extremely high (South Park) sexual content. (Or in Letterman's case, a show that is fairly clean but a private life that leaves a lot to be desired.)
Posted by: James Kabala at Dec 20, 2005 2:07:54 PM
Thanks Amy for the link to Victor Morgan's review. He's a good and faithful Catholic who writes an excellent review which is well worth reading not just for what it says about this particular movie but for what it says about how Catholics ought to approach morally dubious movies which portray immoral acts (such as Narnia).
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Dec 20, 2005 2:20:39 PM
By the way, who actually chooses the USCCB rating (A-I, A-II, A-III, L, O) for a film? When I first started to read these reviews in my diocesan newspaper as a teenager, I was under the naive impression that "USCCB rating" actually meant a committee of bishops watched it and selected the rating themselves. I now know that isn't the case, but who does select the rating? Is it merely the whim of the person assigned to review the movie?
Posted by: James Kabala at Dec 20, 2005 2:21:29 PM
Amy,
As someone who so (admirably I think) consistently rejects the language of post-(fill in the blank) analysis and psychobabble, and, frankly, who has not seen and pledges not to see "Brokeback Mountain", I am surprised to find you praising Stephen Greydanus's piece for a number of reasons.
I have seen "Brokeback Mountain" and I can tell you confidently that whatever one's experience of Lee's work, Greydanus's review is both wrong and far more polemic than the fim. In fact, Lee has created something quite the opposite of what Greydanus describes as I believe Roger Ebert has most succinctly put it (I am excerpting here):
" 'Brokeback Mountain' has been described as 'a gay cowboy movie,' which is a cruel simplification. It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any 'forbidden' love.
The movie wisely never steps back to look at the larger picture, or deliver the 'message.' It is specifically the story of these men, this love. It stays in closeup. That's how Jack and Ennis see it...It could be a 'gay cowboy movie.' But the filmmakers have focused so intently and with such feeling on Jack and Ennis that the movie is as observant as work by Bergman. Strange but true: The more specific a film is, the more universal, because the more it understands individual characters, the more it applies to everyone. I can imagine someone weeping at this film, identifying with it, because he always wanted to stay in the Marines, or be an artist or a cabinetmaker."
To my mind, this is exactly correct. Proulx's and Lee's story is an old and familiar one of loss and unrequited longing told in a particularly deep and tragic way through the lives of two people (and not at all incindentally, their families) for whom it is not only difficult and dangerous for them to have what they want, but utterly impossible.
I've no problem with those who would avoid a film for any reason, from a moral objection to not digging Jake Gylennhaal: it is in the end just a movie. But if you are going to endorse so particular and intense another writer's criticism concerning not just the work but the filmakers' intent, well, I think you need to have seen the thing. He is quite wrong and as the intelligent critic I often find you to be, I think you would see that the movie bears that out.
BTW, my own amatuer review(for what it's worth): excellent but not quite as good as Ebert says. The grand cinematography and the minute details of time and place are simply beautiful; you will indeed not see a better performance this year than Ledger's, and Williams is near as good, but Gyllenhall and Hathaway suffer by comparison and the aging makeup effects don't always convince; it is deeply affecting and becomes more so in retrospect but it slow to dragging at points and dips just a bit into treacly at the very end. A minus.
To repeat though: I don't think it a "message" film in the slightest unless one belives that subject matter and "message" are equivalent - a defensible position I suppose, but not a very interesting one in my view.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute my slightly more than 2 cents. I enjoy your blog.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: gregory at Dec 20, 2005 3:02:09 PM
"Brokeback Mountain" is a tragedy and a morality tale which, I think, is quite appropriate to our modern age of so many people pursuing their desires and destroying themselves and others along the way, while trying to maintain an appearance of normalcy and virtue.
It is not unlike so much of The Scandal, but with the names and occupations changed.
I think it should be seen in all seminaries, and and all Catholic college and university ethics and moral theology classes. It is a great study of what happens when you pursue your (sinful) desires living a life of duplicity and deception, without honestly and humbly facing what you are doing.
I think it is also tragic that if the conspiring couple where heterosexual, leaving being a husband and kids for one partner, and a wife and kids for the other partner, that this would have made no ripples at all in our culture where adultery is almost a social norm.
I think it is also sad that so many feel they are so superior, or so right, and so different from these "gay cowboys" that they can turn a tragedy into a sarcastic jab at the tragedy of another. But we, especially the "boys" among us, have been amusing ourselves turning tragedies of others, especially when they involve sex, into little jokes since Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex". I still remember hearing jokes about AIDS on college campuses in 1982, before most people realized that it was not a "gay disease."
Annie Proulx wrote it as a tragedy. See her collection of dark, brutal, tragic short stories from Wyoming (which ends with "Brokeback Mountain"), Close Range.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 20, 2005 3:41:55 PM
Amy,
Thanks for providing all those links. Something didn't sit quite right about Jimmy Akin's post. Victor Morton's post is excellent.
And yet I read Morton's post and Steven Greydanus's excellent post and something doesn't sit right either. I bet that they and I agree about the power of art and what art is supposed to be about. I like the fact that they are engaging the culture. And I certainly don't think that any movie with morally problematic characters is beyond the pale. Such a position would be ridiculous to take and would require us to reject quite a bit of the great canon of films (and literature if we were to apply the same rule to it).
And yet, there is some part of me that thinks Morton and Greydanus need to get over themselves. By this I don't mean that they are arrogant. But I think they just take the whole Hollywood cinematic thing much, much too seriously. I wonder if in the end the tittering audiences have cut through all the bs and gotten to the heart of things. I will have to reserve final judgment of course on this movie until I see it (if I see it). I wonder if we delude ourselves into thinking that these are just great artists putting together a story of longing and heartbreak. Perhaps we dress up something that in the end is not much more than the manifestations of the juvenile minds that populate Hollywood.
And yes, quite frankly, there is a difference between a story of a heterosexual affair and a homosexual one. They both involve sin but they are different. This distinction seems too easily glossed over.
Also, I wonder if we fail to recognize that there is a difference between literature and film and that the latter has a power to move and shape us that literature doesn't precisely because it stimulates us visually.
Overstreet writes:
If that's the best way for Christians to treat films in which characters engage in inappropriate behavior, why single this movie out? Why not be consistent? Where was this "righteous bile" when Man on Fire topped the box office? Why are we singling this film out as especially heinous for its characters' immoral behavior when a great many character dramas show characters engaging in sins of all stripes every single week? People are drawn to Christ through many endeavors, but they are not drawn to Christ by listening to Christians speak hatefully about homosexuality."
I agree with him about not speaking hatefully about sin. But certainly Overstreet can see a difference between a "gay cowboy movie" and a movie about a vindictive bodyguard in Mexico? (Full disclosure: I thought Man on Fire was a disgusting movie and thankfully I fell asleep before it was over.) I don't think anyone is arguing strenously in the public square that the sorts of actions taken by Denzel Washington's character in that movie should be accepted and praised (I admit that I might be wrong). They certainly are saying that about the sorts of actions that Heath Ledger's character takes in Brokeback Mountain. (In fact, the Episcopal Church ordained such a stellar example of "faithfulness" as a bishop recently.)
This is disconnected. I really don't know what to make of all this. On one hand, I want to agree with Morton et al. because there sensibility seems right to me. On the other hand, I can't help but think that they are being a bit naive and a little too idealisitic about art and, more particularly, the state of art today.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Dec 20, 2005 3:57:18 PM
I haven't seen it, but it certainly seems like a tragedy, especially if you come at with a sense and knowledge of responsibility, sin and expiation. And especially with a knowledge of what causes same-sex desire in the first place. But if you come at it with the People Magazine/Hollywood view of homosexuality,you are going to see it as a tragedy of a very different source, I suspect.
Nevertheless, it is just a movie as someone noted above, so jokes are not off limits.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Dec 20, 2005 4:05:58 PM
Ken! You said filk!
So are you one of the fen named Ken who I know, or one of the fen named Ken who I don't know? :)
Probably one you don't. I'm in the Southern California area -- SF lit/FRP gaming/furry fandom. (I've always been weird.)
Posted by: Ken at Dec 20, 2005 4:31:20 PM
Thomas,
I was hoping to make a point about art, intent and critique thereof and this was not the discussion I was interested in joining but...
Whether your post was directed at me or not, for the record: I do in fact see the film as a "tragedy of a very different source" and while you may disagree please understand that that, and everything else I think or believe, has nothing whatsoever to do with "People Magazine/Hollywood".
Posted by: gregory at Dec 20, 2005 4:36:04 PM
OK, I'll bite: What are the causes of same-sex desire?
Posted by: Nance at Dec 20, 2005 4:46:17 PM
Victor's review is the best I've seen, and will prevent me from having to spend hours constructing one of my own. Although I do have a few thoughts to add, which I will do on my own blog by week's end.
I saw the film this past Sunday, and it played to a nearly full house in a mall in Sherman Oaks. For now I'll just say this: the movie does not scream 'agenda' the way Million Dollar Baby did; Ang Lee is a much more disciplined director than Eastwood, with a greater command of his craft. And I think I believe Lee when he says he didn't intend an agenda film. But I think it will be an example of art being made to say what people want it to say... Very few people receive art for what it is anymore, most have to spin it, to perform eisegesis on it...
The movie will definitely be nominated for an Oscar, and if it doesn't win, it will be clear that the Academy doesn't take kindly to non-agenda films, even when they are masterfully crafted.
It was difficult to watch, and there was definitely material that warranted the O rating. I'm not sure how the USCCB review felt justified with the L rating, except that their reviewer must be one of those neo-Puritans who thinks that the only thing that can be offensive is the amount of flesh that is visible, not the act itself.
Posted by: Clayton at Dec 20, 2005 4:50:39 PM
