Posted on 01/31/2006 7:17:45 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
I read a review of Brokeback Mountain, the conservative author of which actually felt bad that he had felt bad during the movie. The heartache experienced by the characters in the film had elicited a degree of compassion and empathy in him, yet this author’s hatred toward the act of homosexuality had so inoculated him against seeing the true struggle behind the issue that it seemed like he actually felt guilty for internalizing the humanity in Brokeback Mountain.
As much as the movie tilts at the windmills of our country’s Judeo-Christian foundations, and in doing so ravenously angers its conservative watchdogs, the film still serves a noble purpose. It opens the eyes of those who, before seeing the film, had no idea how darkness looms for those who live in fear of telling their friends and family that they are gay.
My friend Ben put it best when he said, “Much of the homophobia in America is built on the human ability to ignore another's humanity, and this film breathes humanity back into the issue.”
I know, just as much as anyone, how desperately this breath of humanity is needed. Having worked for a conservative political organization in the state of Iowa, I have witnessed Christian people treating very disrespectfully those with whom they disagree on moral and social issues like homosexuality. Therefore, as much as the movie teaches us about how to absorb the sufferings of another, its purpose is dignified. However, to the extent that the film seeks to blur the line between acceptance of a behavior and acceptance of a person, its purpose is harmful.
As someone who has personally struggled with, and overcome, unwanted homosexual attractions, I could resonate with the hunger I saw in the film’s characters, Jack and Ennis. They knew they were missing something, and they each thought it was the other.
To understand fully the dynamics of the struggle, one must realize that homosexuality isn't really a sexual issue. Becoming sexually attracted to someone of the same gender is just the symptom of a much deeper emotional need. It is the symptom of a need for healthy, non-sexual intimacy with one’s own gender—a legitimate need that went unchecked during the childhoods of so many pre-homosexual boys and girls.
Communicator Sinclair Rogers once said, “Temptation is the exploitation of a real need.” And so it is with homosexuality.
I believe this movie is harmful in that it paints sexual expression as the proper way to extinguish the heartache and loneliness experienced by those in the gay and lesbian community. Furthermore, the movie exploits the already-existing stereotypes of gender-typical behavior and re-affirms the sexual nature of experiences between men that shouldn’t have to be viewed as sexual at all: the open expression of raw emotion and tender affection; intimacy, trust, caring, physical closeness, and nurturing.
Sociologist Peter M. Nardi, in Men's Friendships, writes “Men are raised in a culture with a mixed message: Strive for healthy, emotionally intimate friendships, but be careful—if you appear too intimate with another man you might be negatively labeled homosexual.”
That Brokeback Mountain uses cowboys to tell its story doesn’t at all make a statement about the healing power of healthy same-gender intimacy. It only shows us that “cowboys can be gay too.” After all, did Jack or Ennis ever leave one of their sexual encounters even a little bit happier than they were before? No. Each and every time they had to go back to the same broken lives they had come from.
The movie itself argues that it was society's fault that Jack and Ennis never had a shot at living a real life together, and I agree. The early 1960s was a tumultuous time to be homosexual in America, and to the degree that the movie is a statement against the violent and homophobic attitudes of the sixties, I am its fan.
However, willing as I may be to cast blame on society for ruining one of Hollywood’s most famous gay relationships, I think that society's response to the relationship of Jack and Ennis is not as important as God’s response. In the same way, I feel that society's answer to the pain experienced by Jack and Ennis is inferior to God’s answer.
I’m also disturbed that the film suggests that Jack and Ennis were at the complete mercy of a homophobic society and had absolutely no power to overcome their circumstances or make their own choices. This portrayal is unfair to the thousands of men and women who, with God’s help, have chosen to reject their homosexual attractions and are experiencing a genuine transformation of their sexual identities.
The truly ironic part of the film is that almost every single scene contains a visual acknowledgment of God’s existence, along with a practical denial of it.
The apostle Paul says, “Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
The scenery portrayed in Brokeback Mountain—the rock formations, the sunrise, the skies, the rivers—they all testify to the existence of God and to the greatness of God. Yet the characters in the film acted in exactly the manner that one would expect someone to act who didn’t believe in God.
After all, isn’t that what this really is all about? The existence of God? The character of God? The power of God? One of the most famous lines in the film is: “If you can’t change [your sexuality] you just have to stand it.” From a human perspective, changing something as deeply ingrained as one’s sexual orientation certainly seems impossible, which is exactly why the world looks at people like me and assumes I’m a fake. But if God really is who he says he is—if God really can heal the sick, turn water into wine, and even bring the dead to life—then overcoming homosexuality wouldn’t seem so difficult, would it?
I suspect that many who saw Brokeback Mountain are in much the same position as the disciples were when Jesus outlined for them the cost of serving him. They responded to Christ’s admonition to give “all they had” by saying “that’s impossible.”
And Jesus replied: "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
I once heard someone say that it’s time for those who struggle with really big things like homosexuality to stop telling God how big their “mountain” is, and start telling their mountain how big God is.
Today, it seems, Brokeback is the mountain that needs to be told how big God is
OOOooyeah, especially after the Alito confirmation ceremony :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1568198/posts
LOL, too funny!
The movie sucked, it is a bomb no matter how the left spins it, and it is a movie about gay SHEEP HERDERS, not cowboys.
But hey, we can't expect the left to know the difference between sheepers and cowboys now, can we?
No movie is going to cause me to gain sympathy for the gay community anymore than I might have for self-inflicting drug users.
No tricks here, this is just the first I've been able to come back and check.
The bottom line is, I'm not defending homosexuality, I've yet to see the movie and I just thought the review was interesting because it wasn't like any of the other reviews I've read.
I haven't left, I just don't have the time that many of you clearly have to spend all day on this site.
Usually we post news that either a reflection of our point of view, or totally opposite with dorogatory comments. By you posting this article that sugar coats the movie with a generalization of God. Totaly contraversial, and to top it off, you never responded to validate your stance.
I don't spend all day on FR, just my lunch break... which has a tendancy to extend itself when the postings get good.
Welcome to FreeRepublic
noted...
Although, I didn't think that the article sugercoated the movie with a generalization of God. The author was fairly specific as to point out not only his own struggle, but I felt like the author was certainly pointing out the gravity of the sin of homosexuality and fighting to overcome it. The author clearly thinks that homosexuality is a sin, which is why he takes it seriously. As he says, temptation is the exploitation of a real need...the need for intimacy and friendship is real, but the manifestation of it in homosexual lifestyles is wrong!
What I felt like the bottom line was...was that God is not interested in abandoning those who are living lives of sin, but rather that He is willing and able to help these men break free of homosexuality because it is indeed sin! The author is testifying to the powerful nature of God because the author himself was once in the grips of homosexuality but is no longer..thanks to God.
I didn't think the editorial glorified homosexuality at all, nor did it condone it as acceptable before God. It just pointed out the fact that even though it's a sin, it's not one that is big enough to stop God.
hollyweird isn't telling you to feel more compassion, God is. To be against homosexuality does not necessitate hatred towards homosexuals. That was the point of the article.
i'm not sure what you're talking about. Should I wait longer to post anything? Is there a time limit?
from your response "I heard"...i take it that you haven't actually seen the movie either, which doesn't exactly give your opinion of the movie legitimacy.
Agreed.
The author's point is that God is powerful enought to break those chains of bondage, as the author points out that God has done in his life! So yes, they must admit that they are sinning, but then what? God is the one that frees them, and that's the point!
I don't know how you would get the idea from the article that either I or the author don't think homosexuality is a sin. Clearly it is...but who is the one that is able to break us free from sin? It's God, isn't it? But the way society/media portrays homosexuality, it's almost as if homosexuals are beyond help. But that's clearly not true, as the author himself testifies to from his own life. God is big enough to free homosexuals from their bondage.
what movie isn't propaganda? How are you defining it? If propaganda is just the manifestation of one's personal views in some sort of publicly consumed medium...then I'm not sure that any movie escapes that definition. Of course it's propaganda, that's not the issue, the issue is..what is the message behind that propaganda? The author's point, and mine, is that perhaps that message isn't what everyone seems to think it is.
The author is precisely one of those that have been delivered from the sin of homosexuality (as you aptly point out in your reply)...
what's a troll?
I've gotten a lot of interesting and thought-provoking replies..considering that discourse is the purpose of this forum, I'm not sure how this was a wasted post.
i never went anywhere, but thanks for the welcome.
What does IOW mean?
I'm not shoving their lifestyle in your face, I posted an article that was interesting and then I told you what I thought the point was. Neither the article, nor I, advocate the homosexual lifestyle...sounds like you just read the first paragraph of the article and drew your own conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.