Apparently there is a group of gay-friendly apologists out there who say things like, "this is not just a movie about gay cowboys."
Well, I have been thinking some things about this. Suilu knows how it is. Your brain just keeps going after you move on to something else...
SPOILER ALERT
This is, in fact, a movie about gay cowboys.
It is a romance between two men who are forced to deny and hide their love, who face life-threatening homophobia every day, and eventually, one of them is finally violently beaten to death with a tire iron for being gay.
So I think it is very bad to say that this is not "just" a movie about gay cowboys. It is primarily a story about finding love, being gay, living in fear, and dying of homophobia. That's what this movie is about. So, no, it's not "just" about gay cowboys. It is about our failings and violence as a society in the face of love we don't want to understand.
Of course, this is a great short story with amazing depth. It is artistically complex, a beautiful literary work. So, sure, I'll buy the subtext that this is also a story about the loss of personal freedom in the west and the intrusion of society on the frontier individual. Sure. Works for me. But that is quite secondary. This is, on the face of it, very, very much a story about gay cowboys.
Let's not be apologists.
EDIT: From a while back, my comments after reading Brokeback Mountain.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 11:39 pm (UTC)*snogs*
Another thing that got to me was the fact that half of the people apologizing professed to be straight.
So it's like "we're not gay, but we're apologizing for it and for it's existence in this story".
. . .
Which is like, dudes/dudettes/whatever, please don't. PLEASE. We don't need you to apologize for us. Really.
Did I tell you how much I love you?
*snogs more*
I think it's time to break out the pup tent. ;)
The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 01:14 am (UTC)All I can say in defense of these people is that there intentions are good. They want to bring people in to see this story who might be put off by the idea of a gay love story. So they want the story to be "more." Something a straight person with some qualms will feel that it's OK to go see. And in some ways that's a good thing. A straight person with qualms, but willing to go, is the kind of person who could take away a lot of good food for thought.
But I still think it's insane to pretend that this movie is not about being gay. That is the story. It could even be "Ripped from the headlines!" practically, except Matthew Shepherd was 10 years ago or so now...
Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 01:51 am (UTC)True and fair enough, and I had thought of that rhetoric as being more platable to some, and that's cool. If it gets people to change their minds or think differently about something, even better.
The more the merrier.
And en-eey-ways ('cause it's more fun to spell and say it that waaaay!!), we queers can just recruit more if more people show up. You know. Spread TEH GAY with subliminal microwaves that infect the brains of the audience.
"1 in 10 is not enough! Recruit recruit recruit!"
Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 01:55 am (UTC)Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 01:57 am (UTC)You can't have sex without teh penis, duh. /Freudian Sarcasm
Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 01:58 am (UTC)Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 02:15 am (UTC)Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 02:30 am (UTC)It was such a beautiful story. It absolutely broke my heart. I was just crying and kept saying "It's not fair! It's not fair!" over and over.
Movie will be tremendous if all the hearsay is right.
Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 02:37 am (UTC)Re: The up side of soft-pedaling the true nature of the story
Date: 2005-09-14 03:21 am (UTC)That took me completely by surprise, perhaps because on the onset of their relationship, it wasn't nearly as - tender? intimate? - in some ways as that kiss was.
It was sohawt. *fans self*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 01:08 am (UTC)Sarcasm, you say?
Date: 2005-09-14 01:10 am (UTC)And how are you this fine day? :)
Re: Sarcasm, you say?
Date: 2005-09-14 04:08 pm (UTC)