The B.S. of Brokeback

"The Password is: Flaming."

The Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and of course "Brokeback Mountain" received a bunch of them, including one for Best Picture. I don't think there's any doubt that the film will win that award along with Best Director for Ang Lee. It's just the way Hollywood works these days. The politics of the movie are just as important as its quality.
I saw the film this past Friday afternoon in order to see if all the hoopla and praise was just. I went by myself as none of my female friends wanted to see it and I just didn't feel comfortable seeing it with guys. This wasn't because I cared what people might think, it was because I knew it would be very unsettling for me seeing homosexual sex sitting next to a guy; I even feel uncomfortable seeing heterosexual acts with guy friends (using the term Kal Vachomer here felt a bit wrong). It's just odd, and I feel squeamish. So I went alone. Of course as the film began I oddly started thinking how I'm in the midst of my longest shomer negiah streak in about 5 years and that I was watching "Brokeback Mountain" by myself- maybe I was a closet homosexual?! But as things would turn out I wasn't arroused by Heath and Jake playing catch, which confirms that I'm not gay...so I guess that's nice. I wasn't so shocked when they would kiss, I mean I do work in Chelsea and have seen enough "Will & Grace" that I'm basically desensitized to such things. But that one scene where Heath Ledger sodomizes Jake Gyllenhal... well to be honest the emotion I felt when I saw it was revulsion. I honestly was nauseous and disgusted by it. I had never seen anything like that in my life (nor do I want to ever again). "Pulp Fiction" and "Deliverance" are different. In those movies one of the guys is getting raped. But here it was consensual and utterly disturbing. I don't feel guilty for feeling so strongly. I mean I can't help it, it's simply how I felt. I have as much a right to feel that way, as another man might feel aroused and liberated by seeing such things in a movie.
I would like to state that I did in fact think that "Brokeback Mountain" was a good movie, but I certainly wouldn't put it in my top five of the year. I thought "A History of Violence" was the best movie of 2005, and it was not nominated for Best Picture, though I feel it's infinitely better than "Brokeback". But even if it was nominated, there's no movie this year that could stop the cowboys from winning the Oscar (I'm hoping the riveting "Crash" will, but I'm a fool for such things). What really bothers me is that I truly believe that the film will win more for its social statement and less for its cinematic merit. I'm pro-gay marriage, disgusted when homosexuals are oppressed, and was genuinely sad when they killed off Peters boss on "Family Guy". Gay people really don't bother me. In fact I'm almost relieved that the movie is going to win the Oscar, this way we can finally stop making an issue it. Five years ago black people (justifiably) were "outraged" at the minimal recognition African-Americans had received at the Oscars. And guess what happened? The next year Whoopi Goldberg hosted (and did a horrible job), Sidney Poitier most-deservedly won the lifetime achievement award, Denzel Washington won Best Actor for "Training Day" (I loved the movie but are you f------ kidding me!), and Halli Berri won Best Actress for her soft-porn turn in "Monsters Ball". Denzel and Halli's wins were probably the two most undeserved victories in Academy history. I mean Denzel beat Russel Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind" and Sean Penn in "I Am Sam"!? If you think I'm just being racist then think about this: Crowe and Penn could each have played each others role as well as Washington's in "Training Day", but Washington simply doesn't have the range to play the other two characters. Crowe should have won, but didn't because he won the previous year for "Gladiator". Washington was good, but not Oscar-good, but of course there's more to it than just the performance. And once more the Academy is going to appease a minority group by awarding an undeserved honor upon an overrated film.
I think the acting in the film is great, even if I had a tough time understanding Ledger mumbling, and I would be satisfied if Michelle Williams won Best Supporting Actress (though my moneys on Rachel Weisz for "The Constant Gardener"). I think the viewer is somewhat cheated with the scopic cinematography. The engaging vistas are meant to be Wyoming, but the shots all have a certain gloom to them. This is because the film is actually shot in Canada. I think Wyoming is owed an apology because the state is far more gorgeous than the film leads one to believe.
And now for my biggest critique of the film: I just didn't see the romance between Jack and Ennis! The first time the two consummate, Ennis is drunk and they basically go at it like a couple of antelope during mating season- a couple of gay antelope of course. I didn't see any love or connection, just rugged man-love extinguishing the sexual frustrations of two guys alone for a prolonged period of time in the middle of nowhere. Would I be doing the same thing in their position? Of course not. I'm not gay....plus I think it would be much more romantic if one was face to face with his/her partner for the first time together.
As the film progress it seems Gylenhalls character is more of a sexual deviant than a romantic imprisoned by society. Both men cheat on their wives, but Jack Twist cheats on Ennis with another good ol boy from Texas and Mexican male hookers as well. His defense is that he can't control himself. He needs homosexual sex. I just couldn't sympathize with this. Should we feel bad for a pedophile who just "needs to rape children"? Hedonism is not a virtue, even when propagated by seemingly "innocent" emotions. I mean the guy's cheating on his wife, which is bad enough. But he's also cheating on his "true love" as well. Heck, I don't even know where this love is. I understand that it's restrained because of the films setting but even when the two are alone it never was apparent to me. Of course hardly any critic will agree with me. It's not worth their career. By making this movie Ang Lee (who is a spectacular director) essentially said "We're going to be making this controversial film that will shock you. But you won't have the guts to talk badly about it even if it sucks." Gene Shalit had some negative criticism for the film and of course fell under the GLAAD firing squad. It just irritates me that a decent film, with a blatant message, must be elevated to a level of grandeur to suppress the accommodating ideological emancipation of a bickering minority. It's a shame the chussidim haven't been making such a stink lately. Perhaps "Ushpizin" would have been nominated for an Oscar too.