Replies

Note though that this film was one of the highest grossing films per screen ($109.5k/screen) of the year, due to its limited release schedule (NYC and LA, go figure). I heard that they are going to push this movie into wide distribution in the coming weeks. It could get ugly.

What is propagandistic is how this is pitched as a story of human relationships and 'longing', equalizing homosexual activity with that of the God-given ideal of male-female love.

Additionally subversive is the use of starring two rising and attractive stars--appealing to both gay men and straight women.

The title of the book, "Slouching towards Gomorrah" comes to mind.

What is propagandistic is how this is pitched as a story of human relationships and 'longing', equalizing homosexual activity with that of the God-given ideal of male-female love.

That seems to be the plan...From the review on the Advocate, the reasoning is thus:

"...straight men may find the film less threatening than they fear. While Lee doesn’t skimp on scenes of physical intimacy, these moments are all very tastefully shot—honest and rather tame. In fact, Brokeback focuses more on Ennis and Jack not having sex than their actually going through with it.

And if straight women and men do turn out to see Brokeback, that will mean good things for LGBT people too. The movie challenges stereotypes in a way so-called gay movies, which usually exaggerate those stereotypes, cannot—even gay movies smart enough to subvert assumptions. Here the stereotype that’s being turned inside out is more universal. The movie questions the “masculinity” we attribute to emotionally unavailable men: By the end of the film it’s the expressive Jack we consider brave and the silent Ennis we find cowardly.

The reviewer sees the value of Brokeback strictly for its propaganda value, much like the opinion of the reviewer from the US Bishop's Conference