Breathing Humanity Back Into Brokeback

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.

Homophobia is a homosexual describing himself as "gay" cause he can't stand the fact that he is a homosexual.

Homosexuals live in denial and want so terribly to be accepted so they can accept themselves. That's why everything about their behavior has to be normal, accepted, blessed, sanctioned, sanctified, encouraged and celebrated. And if it isn't there is something wrong with the beholder.

Kind of like an AA meeting where booze is served and anyone who objects is a tee-totaling, sanctimonious, prudish alco-phobe.

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.

I would agree with you that by your definition no movie would escape being propaganda...however that is not what I'd consider an accurate definition. I would say a more accurate definition in relation to a movie would be one that presents information or ideas with the intention of changing the stance of others. Typically false or incomplete or inaccurately presented information is employed, although not in every case...there can be truthful propaganda, although this movie is not an example of truthful propaganda.

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.

Not sure if you're qualified to speak for the author. I would point out that it's more than just what the message is behind the movie but the world view that such a message is rooted in. I'm not certain what message you believe the movie is intending to present, but it seems clear that one intent is to present a world in which adultery and homosexuality are acceptable. The movie presents false statements...for instance, that one can't help being homosexual. There are many ex-gays, but that fact is the type of thing that the world view behind the movie would rather not be known.

The author is precisely one of those that have been delivered from the sin of homosexuality (as you aptly point out in your reply)...

That is belied by the fact that the opposite is stated in the movie. Isn't the signature line in the film "I wish I knew how to quit you"? Does that sound like a statement of someone who has been delivered from homosexuality? Another example is even in the marketing of the film. The characters are continually referred to as cowboys when they are actually shepherds...guess gay shepherds doesn't sound macho enough...hence the cowboy references. Not sure how long you'll end up lasting on this board, but wish you best of luck...you seem reasonable enough, although incorrect regarding this movie.

I was referring to the author of the movie review that I posted, not the author of the movie. The movie might be presenting a different message, but what I said about the author's message seems to hold true upon reading over the article again. I have not seen the movie, but even if I accept your statement that the "it seems clear that one intent is to present a world in which adultery and homosexuality are acceptable. The movie presents false statements...for instance, that one can't help being homosexual. There are many ex-gays, but that fact is the type of thing that the world view behind the movie would rather not be known"...I don't think that the article I posted agrees with the movie.

The article's author is very candid about his own struggle with homosexuality and what he writes are his problems with the movie and the way it portrays the sin/problem/condition of homosexuality.

I appreciate your comments, but I think that you may have misread my post, because I wasn't commenting on the content of the movie so much as I was referring to the content of the article.

Hopefully I'll last longer than just this post, eh?

I finally saw "Brokeback Mountain" yesterday, just to see what everyone was talking about. It's not just a "gay" movie. It's a love story, period, but the homosexual angle makes the story so much more devastating because it means the two cowboys can never be together, an obstacle that wouldn't be there for a man and a woman. If you've ever lost someone you loved, it'll hit you right in the heart, whether you like it or not. I went in preparing to be grossed out. I came out thinking about an old girlfriend I've never gotten over, and remembering this quote from another old girlfriend: "I was in love once. It sucked."

Sorry, I always come to the threads too late.

It just occurred to me while watching Jay Leno tonight, when he made a Brokeback Mountain joke (or as I call it, "Bareback Mountin' ")...

could this whole movie be a Hollywood / Lavender Mafia inside joke, an "I double-dog dare you" thing?

Remember Matthew Shepard?...Sheperd...Shepherd...Sheep Herders...and in Wyoming, of all places?

Could this be the homos' way of thumbing their...err, noses at middle America?

(Yeah, yeah, I know, tin-foil hat and all that. But why not, if it makes for a way to pass the time posting...?)

Cheers!

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.