FS&R - Does Not Watching Brokeback Mountain Make You Homophobic?
Contact Johnny
What is Flex, Slugs, & Rigamarole? Click HERE to find out.
If you've been doing your best Unabomber impersonation and just came out from the wilderness you were living
in then I'm curious - how in the world did you find my site? But such seclusion is about the only way you
wouldn't have heard of Ang Lee's gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain. If you want a plot summary, well,
I just gave it to you - it's a gay cowboy movie. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are "cowboys" who develop a
"forbidden" and "secretive" relationship out on those dusty, dreary plains. They kiss and stuff.
Predictably, the movie has created controversy amongst its detractors and supporters alike. Even more
predictably, I'll have a few people accuse me of "oversimplifying" the story. Whatever. Do as you wish. I'll
go ahead and tell you that I'm part of the group that has absolutely zero interest in watching a "love story"
between two guys. The subject matter doesn't intrigue me in the least, and it's my right as an American citizen
to choose not to spend my money on a movie I have no desire to support.
You would think supporters of the movie would respect that right, wouldn't you? After all, they proclaim to
promote peace and love for all. They believe in "understanding" and "tolerance" of differing opinions,
right?
Well, some might, but these are just talking points for many in the pro-Brokeback Mountain group.
Sadly, there are a number of advocates who argue that not seeing the movie automatically makes you
homophobic. I take exception to that. I don't fear gay men. Why would I? They hit like girls! Hey oh!
*ba dum dum psh*
Perhaps it's best we stay away from rim shots in this article. Hooooooo!
*ba dum dum psh*
Thank you, thank you.
Seriously though, can a heterosexual male choose to not spend his money to watch Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal
smooch without people glaring evilly at them as if they just kicked a baby puppy in the gut?
On another movie message board (one nowhere near the quality of
the Movie Mark message board), in a great
display of open-mindedness, a moviegoer complained that his friends "probably" wouldn't go see the movie with
him because he assumes they think it'll make them "less of a man" and "possibly gay."
I argued that perhaps it had more to do with the fact that most heterosexual males simply don't want to spend
good money to watch two guys go at it hot and heavy. That doesn't make us homophobes; it just means watching
guys kiss is not something we enjoy and certainly not something most of us want to pay to see.
I was given the argument that if it doesn't make us homophobes then it certainly means we're "immature,
narrow-minded, ignorant and completely foolish."
Gotta love that open-minded, tolerant opinion, huh?
So someone who doesn't have interest in seeing two males share love scenes (or a love relationship) is
automatically immature, narrow-minded, ignorant, and completely foolish? Could that possibly be painted with
a broader stroke? Could the irony in that statement be any thicker?
I wouldn't care to watch two naked 80-year olds go at it either; does that mean I'm immature, narrow-minded,
ignorant, and completely foolish regarding the subject of octogenarian love? I'll never watch a movie with
Ron Jeremy in it. Does that immediately make me a foolish moron when it comes to movies about the love lives
of Wookies? How about the fact that I refuse to pay to see Uwe Boll's BloodRayne? I suppose that means
I'm immature, narrow-minded, ignorant, and completely foolish when it comes to cinematic feces.
What if a movie was made with this guy's parents sharing love scenes? Would he be required to watch it or
else risk being labeled immature, narrow-minded, ignorant, and completely foolish? Are moviegoers to feel
obligated to develop an interest for every single genre? Have we come to the point where we should
be persecuted because there are some movies out there with a subject matter that we politely decline to
support with our hard-earned dollars?
I've already heard the line about how "it's not a gay movie!" and "it's about more than two guys
kissing!" So? I'm not big on romances in the first place. Should I be called derogatory names because I'm even
less interested in a romance between two guys? If I went to the theater and beat up people who were paying
to see the movie then you'd have every right to criticize my actions.
But as it stands, I have every right to not pay to see Brokeback Mountain. If you're a
heterosexual male (or female, for that matter) then you should also be able to choose to not see the movie
without fear of being labeled a homophobe or some other knee-jerk moniker. Heck, you can even be homosexual
and have no desire to see the movie. Though you'll probably be branded a traitor.
If you're one of the immature, narrow-minded, ignorant, and completely foolish people out there who thinks
everybody has to see Brokeback Mountain else they're a bigot who is still living in the Stone Age then
I suggest you learn a little tolerance yourself. You preach it so loudly; how about you try practicing it? Or
are hypocritical double standards an easier way to go?
Hmm, I wonder if there were any homosexuals who made a conscious decision to not see
The Notebook? Perhaps because they had no desire to see a
"straight love story"? What a bunch of heterophobes!
Of course, this is just my opinion. You could be wrong.
|
| READER COMMENTS |
On Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 2:23:31 PM Laslo Hollyfeld mused:
Right on! It's about time someone made this point.
I can't add anything beyond what has already been said. |
On Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 2:41:50 PM Steph mused:
I have a confession to make. I am a gorillaphobe. I have no real desire to see King Kong. I admit it, I am a horrible person who deserves to be dead. |
On Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 3:03:41 PM anne mused:
Gods, couldn't have put it better myself. If this is what it takes to be labelled as homophobic, then I'll gladly accept the term.
Open minded indeed!
Keep up the great work,
anne |
On Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 4:09:02 PM Rhiannon mused:
*whistles absently*
I have no idea how I feel on this subject, except I would like at least *ONE* of my homophobic straight guy-friends to see the movie so that I can truly know their response. I mean, what if you were surprised? You were by some chick flicks that you didn't plan to like. And even if you don't like it - I'm wanting you, Johnny, to see this film cause I want to know what you think of it, not what you think of the subject matter before giving it a shot.
I know I'm biased. I've decided I'm going to love it before it even opens in my area. I might be sorely dissappointed - and if I am, I'll admit it. But the reason that I want YOU to see it is because I want to know that you think after watching it.
I want you to see all movies that I'm interested in - before I watch them, so I can get your opinion, because it counts.
|
On Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 10:41:31 PM Australian Ann mused:
But Johnny, it is a Western. |
On Wednesday, January 04, 2006 at 4:05:36 AM Flipmoot mused:
There! Nothing really to add, so I'll do it anyway. It should be a choice for everybody to make for himself without being labelled. The typical "if you're not with us, you're against us" approach. I think it's shallow. I myself don't feel like seeing this movie, because it doesn't interest me. So do modern Westerns. I must be a westernfobe aswell as a homofobe then... |
On Wednesday, January 04, 2006 at 9:42:52 AM Rhiannon mused:
I knew Aussie Ann would come and join the BBM love eventually. |
On Wednesday, January 04, 2006 at 10:37:39 AM Johnny Betts mused:
A) It is NOT a Western. No moreso than "Pure Country" or "8 Seconds." Any movie where an automobile is the most prevalent form of transportation cannot be a Western.
Plus, a Western has to have guns and shootouts!
B) Rhiannon - I appreciate your sentiment and understand where you're coming from. If I were a reader I'd feel the same way. The thing about the chick flicks that I ended up enjoying is they always had the hot babe factor!
"The Notebook"? Rachel McAdams! "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"? Kate Hudson, baby! That's a huge element missing from ol' Brokeback.
I can't see every movie, and when I don't see one for free then I'm very exclusive about what I'll actually pay for. Plus, my time is as precious as my money. |
On Thursday, January 05, 2006 at 11:19:33 PM watever mused:
I agree with what you are saying you and everybody else in the world has the right not to watch BBM or any other movie ever made. However i don't see that most people pro-BBM are so terrible for wanting people to see it. The fact is they are just excited that they have a movie for their sexual orientation and want to make it known and perhaps have some people, that are closed minded, view them differently. As far as being homophobic for not watching it depends on if you are homophobic in general. Bottom line to begin with it is a movie that many will love and many more will hate and only those who have seen it have the right to critique the film itslef |
On Friday, January 06, 2006 at 11:03:17 AM Flipmoot mused:
...Must have had a brainfart then. Thought to remember this was a western. But it's not, you're right, apologies. |
On Friday, January 06, 2006 at 2:56:20 PM Katta mused:
Rhi directed me here, and having read this I only have two questions that I feel your lengthy comment on this film didn't answer. The first is: do you want to see this movie? And the second is: are you a heterosexual? |
On Sunday, January 08, 2006 at 1:03:48 AM AustralianAnn mused:
I predict that the only disappointing thing for me about Bareback Mountin' is that there will be no gay subtext. |
On Monday, January 09, 2006 at 12:55:57 AM Johnny Betts mused:
Lengthy? Katta, I remember you from back in the day when you read my Rider Reviews so I know that you recognize when I truly get lengthy.
Rheeeee, are you trying to stir stuff up again? |
On Monday, January 09, 2006 at 5:05:39 PM Rhiannon mused:
Johnny, I would respond to your question about me trying to stir up trouble, but I'm too busy laughing at Ann's comment.
No. Not trying to stir up trouble. Just came up in conversation. I think it's funny when people question your heterosexuality - and even funnier that you think you need to defend it.
|
On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at 12:14:39 PM Laslo Hollyfeld mused:
In the end, however, it IS only a movie. Whether or not I choose to see it is up to me, and I can base that decision on any number of criteria--subject matter being one of them.
I am not interested in seeing "Hostel," because I am not interested in seeing graphic gore and violence. Does that make me a bad person because I am "judging" that film without seeing it? That's why previews were invented, to give you a taste of what the film will be about.
Again, folks...this is ONLY a movie. This isn't the sign of the Apocalypse, nor is it the ultimate arbiter on the whole gay/straight debate.
I don't want to see it, I don't berate people who do want to see it, and I don't want to be socially disemboweled for my decision. |
On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at 11:03:00 PM Johnny Betts mused:
When people question my heterosexuality? Who, I say, who has engaged in such questioning? Katta's comments were accepted with the sarcasm in which they were delivered.
And I don't feel the need to defend my heterosexuality. I can't help that it just oozes out of everything I do. It's similar to how my sardonic wit just naturally accompanies all I do. |
On Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 9:11:24 AM Rhiannon mused:
Kata's comments were sarcastic, and I found them funny.
Anyways, saw the movie last night. I still hold that I think you would enjoy it - at least the first half-hour. Hell, I could tell you where to fast forward when it comes out on DVD and you would never know that there was gay subject matter. Just some gay subtext to keep Ann happy. And a couple of guys that go on frequent fishing trips.
(Ann. There be gay subtext as well as gay text. you shall not be disappointed.) |
|
