Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
aimnyamer

Brokeback Mountain

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Do these characters actually do any "gay" things in the movie, such as kiss, love scenes, etc. I just want to know in case someone has the movie playing one day and I stop and watch out of curiousity, I don't want to end up sick to my stomach.

Yes, there are. You will then get sick to your stomach. They definately kiss and express their passion. What should be more sickening for you, if you ever happen to watch it, is how they both treat their wives, especially Ines. What is also sickening is how non-assertive Ines' wife is.

This getting sick to your stomach thing concerns me. You should see someone about it. This gay things seems to be getting more popular, and it might just happen, especially in a big city that you might stumble across two guys kissing. This sickness could be quite embarassing for you. I could imagine you on a date with a very special sexy lady, and suddenly you stumble across the kissing men and then--she might have to nurse you or something.

But I do have a question: What would be more sickening to walk the street and see a dead murdered body or two see two men making out?

Also, do you think that you can watch the Olympics in ancient Greece, i.e., can you stomach male wrestling--because they do it nude, I hear?

Also this nausea can also be a sign of love. I know that I once felt like puking when I realized how much I loved my beloved. I wasn't sickened by the gay thing but that I loved someone so much ... it was a rare event ... kind of like walking into a strange but beautiful land where the atmosphere is different.

Jose Gainza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but *why* does Ennis treat Alma the way he does? That's the interesting part. Trust me, it's a *very* complicated film. I promise to get my Oscar Roundup done here by tomorrow - it includes an extensive review of Brokeback.

-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have a complete lack of moral worth. Just by the act of choosing to be "gay" they are destoying their life as a proper man (or woman) should live it.

Without starting yet another debate on the worth (or lack thereof) of homosexuality, I think that my life proves how wrong you are. I could have been ok with it if you said that you didn't like watching gay love scenes. Frankly, graphic loves scenes of any sort I'm not involved in can tend to make me sick.

However, to ascribe a set of supposed lack of values to any man or woman simply because of the sex life they choose without any evidence backing up the statement is mind boggling. There are a great deal of gay people who are without moral worth. However, that does not prove that all gay people are without moral worth. After all, there are just as many straight people without any moral worth.

If you care to continue the conversation, please be kind enough to elaborate on why you made this statement or point me to a source that will explain why it was made. Otherwise, please don't put generalizations onto all of us when they don't belong.

Edited by redfarmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to explain my thinking on this subject in the homosexuality vs. heterosexuality thread. I just need to make my point more succinct before I post there again. Please don't tell me how to judge others moral worth (or lack thereof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie, if you really wished to call it that (it's synopsis seems more befitting the depravity of "Naturalistic Literature"), is nothing more than Egalitarian propaganda. I didn't have to see it to understand what it's goal was, though I did just to confirm my suspicions, but all I had to do is see the way Hollywood puts forth the advertizing. Romantic Art is supposed to project an image of what man "ought to be", and even if we acknowledge the obvious right of an individual to associate romantically with whomever they choose, the substance of the plot reeks of doom-and-gloom cynicism.

I'm not going to give my personal opinion on homosexuality because quite frankly it has nothing to do with this work's lack of value. But I am going to voice my complete disgust for the fact that such movies as "The Chronicles of Narnia", "Star Wars, Episode 3 and "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", movies that have clearly defined heroes and ideals which are reached for (though not achieved in all cases), are being passed up for this garbage at the Oscars.

This movie is equally as functionless as the art from Soviet Russia depicting the struggle of the prolitariat. It is propaganda put forth by an increasingly Egalitarian community in Hollywood that wishes to shape how people form values by attempting to project sympathy onto non-sympathetic characters.

Edited by dark_unicorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boy, you watch some depressing movies. When I think of the basic love-story, it always ends with, "And they lived happily ever after..."

Fairy tales end with "And they lived happily ever after".

Love stories do not...

Romeo and Juliet

Tristan and Yseult

and even "Love Story"

Romantic Art is supposed to project an image of what man "ought to be", and even if we acknowledge the obvious right of an individual to associate romantically with whomever they choose, the substance of the plot reeks of doom-and-gloom cynicism.

Brokeback Mountain does present men as they ought to be - they ought to be happy, they ought to be free. Ennis and jack have glimpses of happiness and freedom, and that is how they ought to be able to live their lives. Jack recognises this in his final conversation with Ennis.

It is their tragdey that the only way they can be free as they ought to be is to hide their freedom on the cold side of a mountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fairy tales end with "And they lived happily ever after".

Love stories do not...

Romeo and Juliet

Tristan and Yseult

and even "Love Story"

So all those romantic comedies Meg Ryan did aren't love stories? Breakfast at Tiffany's isn't a love story? All those musicals from the 50s aren't love stories? Ayn Rand's novels aren't love stories?

I'm not debating that there aren't love stories which have tragic endings. But it's not part of any sort of standard formula. In fact, the only love-story formula I'd heard before yours was: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back.

That said, I don't like the vast majority of loves stories out there, because they're too sappy. Judging by what I've seen in this thread, Brokeback Mountain probably isn't much different in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brokeback Mountain does present men as they ought to be - they ought to be happy, they ought to be free. Ennis and jack have glimpses of happiness and freedom, and that is how they ought to be able to live their lives. Jack recognises this in his final conversation with Ennis.
This is not what the film presents, although the ending would seem to suggest this at first glance. The entire film is built around the premise that seeking one's happiness will come at the expense of others, and their wives are the primary victims of this philosophy. It presents some very unfortunate senarios that come with the action befitting moral cowards.

It is their tragdey that the only way they can be free as they ought to be is to hide their freedom on the cold side of a mountain.

As opposed to the ideal of jamming their pursuit of happiness down the throats of other individuals whom choose not to acknowledge or celebrate their method of attaining it. This is not romanticism, this is egalitarianism under the guise of romanticism. The only silver-lining in this film is that it is not required viewing enforced by the government, althought the current tide of political correctness may make it so. In the minds of some, the wrong ideals are precisely the ones to laude and sometimes we must push them regardless to the consent of those whom we push it on.

P.S. - Freedom is wherever you choose to pursue it, it matters not whether it is sought on the cold side of a mountain or any other place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As opposed to the ideal of jamming their pursuit of happiness down the throats of other individuals whom choose not to acknowledge or celebrate their method of attaining it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the characters in the movie jamming their pursuit down people's throat or the folks who made the movie jamming...etc.?

Aside from that, exactly how does one "jam" their pursuit of happiness down someone else's throat? I haven't seen the movie, by choice, so it's not being jammed down my throat. Even if I saw the movie, I would still control what's going in "my throat" IF I take the time to evaluate it myself rather than giving proxy of my brain to the filmmakers.

Does a person's pursuit of hapiness require that someone else acknowledge or celebrate their methodolog? Should a person hide their pursuit of happiness just because other people might not want to see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would be more sickening to walk the street and see a dead murdered body or two see two men making out?

In my case, the two guys making out would gross me out worse. That's mostly because I see dead murdered bodies all the time. Dead bodies are just kind of there and they don't do much. Now smelling a dead body vs. seeing two guys make out...there's a toss up. I guess my point is, is the question actually supposed to establish something?

Mind you, this comes from a guy who REALLY enjoyed the series Six Feet Under on HBO. I'm not gay, but I was glad to see David and Keith fnd happiness with each other in the end, but I really didn't care to see their sex scenes. Then again, I never wanted to see any sex scenes involving Ruth either.

I think you really shouldn't worry about whether another person loves or is disgusted by any given love or sex scene, kissing or otherwise. One might think you were trying to shove your values down someone else's throat in the manner that another poster recently mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

** Spoiler Alert **

This is not what the film presents, although the ending would seem to suggest this at first glance. The entire film is built around the premise that seeking one's happiness will come at the expense of others,

As opposed to the ideal of jamming their pursuit of happiness down the throats of other individuals whom choose not to acknowledge or celebrate their method of attaining it. This is not romanticism, this is egalitarianism under the guise of romanticism. The only silver-lining in this film is that it is not required viewing enforced by the government, althought the current tide of political correctness may make it so. In the minds of some, the wrong ideals are precisely the ones to laude and sometimes we must push them regardless to the consent of those whom we push it on.

P.S. - Freedom is wherever you choose to pursue it, it matters not whether it is sought on the cold side of a mountain or any other place.

The unhappiness in the film is because the character's try to sacrifice their happiness (with one another in a homosexual relationship) for what is expected of them - marriage, children. The premise of the film is that one should seek one's own happiness.

Maybe they should have a little more selfish fortitude - to simply embrace their chance at happiness with one another. But we are given quite a graphic depiction of what that might involve. As a child Ennis was taken to see a man who had had his willy chopped off and left to die, because he was gay.

And Jack? He is killed - the inferrence being because he was gay.

Jack and Ennis do not want to have to hide the happiness by a frozen lake in the middle of God only knows where (is it set in Wyoming?) - they want to be able to be open about their love for one another but they cannot. They do not choose to pursue their happiness their.

One point - when I saw the film in the cinema, in the scene in which Alma catches Jack and Ennis kissing, a lot of the audience laughed; as if this were funny!. I believe that the audience was mostly heterosexual (I can;t be sure, I did not do a poll), but I found this distasteful. It was not funny to see a wife and a mother find her husband cheating on her. As you may have guessed, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it must be even worse to find he is cheating on you with a man. I do think 'though, that in the film itself (not in the reaction in the audience when I saw it ), there is a lot of sympathy for Alma's predicament and the film in no way promotes/condones adultery.

[Edit - Added Spoiler Alert - RC]

Edited by RationalCop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is a spoiler alert? Am I in trouble?

A spoiler alert just means that you make clear that in a certain passage, you will tell relevant details about the content of a movie or book. Adding such a spoiler alert allows people who want to watch the movie/ read the book to skip that passage so that the movie/book-experience isn't spoiled.

You're not in trouble. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the characters in the movie jamming their pursuit down people's throat or the folks who made the movie jamming...etc.?
It's the people who made the movie and how the plot is presented, it creates a senario that does not conform to an objective reality, but the reality as seen by the New Left. The so-called fear of pursuing their true happiness (the characters) is built on a premise that society forced them into living a lie, which by today's standards is obviously not the case, our more liberalized society is more content to mind it's own business (with the exception of a few moronic Christians in the Bible belt, whom contrary to conventional wisdom, are not representative of any American majority, religious or otherwise.)

The end goal is to leave the viewer with a sense of unearned guilt for having been part of such a society, and the penance of which is to feel sorry for these characters, ergo to pity them.

Aside from that, exactly how does one "jam" their pursuit of happiness down someone else's throat? I haven't seen the movie, by choice, so it's not being jammed down my throat. Even if I saw the movie, I would still control what's going in "my throat" IF I take the time to evaluate it myself rather than giving proxy of my brain to the filmmakers.

Jam may not be entirely the correct word, however, Naturalistic Art functions as a light form of propaganda that can have an affect on the views of the victim if he is not aware of what's going on, and the film-makers are not fully forthcoming on what their purpose is with this picture.

The reason why it may not fully qualify as propaganda is because it is not being passed on to an intellectually "captive" audience, as would be the case with 1 dimensional Communistic art and film. But the Egalitarian elements are there, plain as day.

I think you really shouldn't worry about whether another person loves or is disgusted by any given love or sex scene, kissing or otherwise. One might think you were trying to shove your values down someone else's throat in the manner that another poster recently mentioned.

But how can I shove my views down your throat? You just proved that an Intellectually powerful mind (which is attributed to pretty much everyone on this forum) can deny the claims of another through thought. Furthermore, I did not even mention what my view was on homosexuality, nor did I even bring up the sexual content of this film in my posts, for all you know I might actually be myself a homosexual who simply didn't agree with the conduct of these two characters in regards to their wives and families. My criticisms were entirely upon the philosophical intentions of this film, which I read as Naturalistic, and Naturalism in itself shoves an agenda down the throats of it's viewers, and that is the idea that the world doesn't change (I have the same criticism of other non-sexuality oriented movies out there right now). If you wish to differ with me and argue that it is Romantic in nature (as Dan Bidewell is doing quite effectively I might add, though I'm not convinced of the view he has taken).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the filmmakers' intentions, I do not agree that it presents "reality as seen by the New Left".

The so-called fear of pursuing their true happiness (the characters) is built on a premise that society forced them into living a lie, which by today's standards is obviously not the case.

The movie was set in the mid-1960s. The premise that society did not tolerate gay cowboys settling down and living happily ever after is undoubtedly a sound one. However, the movie does not say that the characters were forced to live a lie because of this atmosphere. On the contrary, I think it uses this environment as a dramatic setting in which the characters (particularly Ennis) must choose to pursue their values (or face the terrible consequences) even when it is difficult. I don't see the main point (or even a minor point) of the movie as being a "look what happens when homophobia dominates a culture" thing. Which is not to say that some leftists don't read that into it.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how can I shove my views down your throat? You just proved that an Intellectually powerful mind (which is attributed to pretty much everyone on this forum) can deny the claims of another through thought. Furthermore, I did not even mention what my view was on homosexuality,

You are responding to a post I made to another user as though I targeted those comments at you.

First, I never mentioned that YOU tried to shove anything down anyone's throats. The comment to which I referred, as you clarified, had to do with the the filmmaker's trying to shove their values down someone else's throats. My question asking for that clarification NEVER included YOU as part the query. That is the "shoving" to which I referred. You are dropping the context of your own comment and mine in your accusation about me.

Second, I NEVER assumed your position on anything, let alone homosexuality. You will note that my response to you is leaden with QUESTIONS to clarify your position. The only comments in my response to you that are not questions are statements about ME.

My response to Americonorman addressed his comments. I suggest you re-read both comments. I generally quite direct and quite literal in my comments and accusations. You needn't try to read between the lines of my posts for sly inferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are responding to a post I made to another user as though I targeted those comments at you.

First, I never mentioned that YOU tried to shove anything down anyone's throats. The comment to which I referred, as you clarified, had to do with the the filmmaker's trying to shove their values down someone else's throats. My question asking for that clarification NEVER included YOU as part the query. That is the "shoving" to which I referred. You are dropping the context of your own comment and mine in your accusation about me.

Second, I NEVER assumed your position on anything, let alone homosexuality. You will note that my response to you is leaden with QUESTIONS to clarify your position. The only comments in my response to you that are not questions are statements about ME.

My response to Americonorman addressed his comments. I suggest you re-read both comments. I generally quite direct and quite literal in my comments and accusations. You needn't try to read between the lines of my posts for sly inferences.

I apologize for the mix-up, I read your post but not Americonorman's and thought that you were implying something that you obviously were not by virtue of this current explanation. Truth be told I am a bit more tolerant of homosexuality than the average Catholic, and try to be objective when analyzing and critiquing art depicting homosexual situations, "The Bird Cage" is actually one of my favorite comic films to date.

Part of the reason why I jumped to the erronius conclusion that you were making clever inferences is that I have often been the target of ridicule on other forums by members of "The New Left" because of my affinity with Laissez Faire capitalism somehow qualifies me as a homophobic Bible-beating fool whom has his head up George Bush's rear end. Do not take this as excuse making because it is intended merely as an explanation, but I've come to look for sly inferences almost by default, this is something I'll work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I apologize for the mix-up, I read your post but not Americonorman's and thought that you were implying something that you obviously were not by virtue of this current explanation.

Okay, I appreciate your apology and explanation. I think you will find that few users on here engage in the "sly inferences" that I mentioned. It happens, but not often, and the poster usually gets challenged when it does happen.

I may have more to follow up on when I have the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my case, the two guys making out would gross me out worse. That's mostly because I see dead murdered bodies all the time. Dead bodies are just kind of there and they don't do much. Now smelling a dead body vs. seeing two guys make out...there's a toss up. I guess my point is, is the question actually supposed to establish something?

Mind you, this comes from a guy who REALLY enjoyed the series Six Feet Under on HBO. I'm not gay, but I was glad to see David and Keith fnd happiness with each other in the end, but I really didn't care to see their sex scenes. Then again, I never wanted to see any sex scenes involving Ruth either.

I think you really shouldn't worry about whether another person loves or is disgusted by any given love or sex scene, kissing or otherwise. One might think you were trying to shove your values down someone else's throat in the manner that another poster recently mentioned.

Maybe the following will help explain how I meant my former comments:

There may be one day when I'm kissing my boyfriend on the street car, and if a guy in a seat close by suddenly throws up, it is going to interrupt my kiss, and the smell of the puke is going to spoil the mood. I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I am propogating a culture where people won't throw up when they witness me express my love. It is not a shove; it is a suggestion.

Again, I wasn't writing with the intention of shoving anything down anyone's throat, especially down a throat that has just puked, and especially my "sexuality" down that throat.

Again, since my writing does and will involve sexually explicit gay scenes--though they will be integral to the theme, plot, etc.--I am just hoping that more people will be able to tolerate what I write. Hey, I'm trying to build up my market.

:lol:

Jose Gainza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the following will help explain how I meant my former comments:

There may be one day when I'm kissing my boyfriend on the street car, and if a guy in a seat close by suddenly throws up, it is going to interrupt my kiss, and the smell of the puke is going to spoil the mood. I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I am propogating a culture where people won't throw up when they witness me express my love. It is not a shove; it is a suggestion.

Again, I wasn't writing with the intention of shoving anything down anyone's throat, especially down a throat that has just puked, and especially my "sexuality" down that throat.

Again, since my writing does and will involve sexually explicit gay scenes--though they will be integral to the theme, plot, etc.--I am just hoping that more people will be able to tolerate what I write. Hey, I'm trying to build up my market.

:confused:

Jose Gainza.

I'm not into PDAs (Public displays of affection) to begin with. I love physical affection as much as any man, but I generally try to not to hard core make out with my girlfriend in public :worry:.

I don't think there is anything over the top about sort of more toned down affection (holding hands or a small peck on the lips/cheek), but I think both hetero and homosexual couples would benefit from a little more tact. *Note*...I'm not trying to insinuate or suggest that you and your boyfriend are tactless or tacky. I just think this debate over whether or not gay people kissing on the street or not should be a moot point. I'm a heterosexual and even if I didn't have a girlfriend I wouldn't really be into getting a peep show from a heterosexual couple that was PDA happy. My negative reaction isn't because a person is gay or straight, but rather the nature of the display in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that I would feel a little queasy not actually start puking. Also, I would probably feel just as sick seeing to guys kissing in the street (or wherever) as I would if I came across a dead body. Take the stench away from the dead body and I would feel better seeing the body then the males kissing because at least death is natural while homosexual acts are as unnatural as it can get short of beastiality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant that I would feel a little queasy not actually start puking. Also, I would probably feel just as sick seeing to guys kissing in the street (or wherever) as I would if I came across a dead body. Take the stench away from the dead body and I would feel better seeing the body then the males kissing because at least death is natural while homosexual acts are as unnatural as it can get short of beastiality.

What do you mean by natural?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural in the sense that what a man ought to do as part of his identity. But I am not going to rehash my arguments in the "Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality" thread here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against homosexuals, but I really have absolutely no desire to watch a gay cowboy movie. From what I understand, there are a couple of rather rough sex scenes...I just really don't want to see one man plowing another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...