Two blokes have a boring job eating baked beans and tending sheep on top of a mountain. One is strong and silent, the other dandy. On a particularly cold night the two find themselves in the same tent. Stuff happens. My question is:
a) Do the two cowboys become gay because of lack of entertainment options? This is similar to the question that came to my mind after watching Deepa Mehta's Fire. Do people become lesbians because they have sick and abusive husbands??
This would imply that being gay is not pure biological disposition but also a matter of choices made under circumstances. That stuck on a mountain, far from society's prying eyes and with no other human company anyone might indulge in a same sex physical affair.
b) The fact that the affair continues long after means the cowboys weren't gay by accident but inherently so. At several points in the film Jack (Jake Gyllenhall) implies that he and Ennis (Heath Ledger) could have had a great life together on a ranch somewhere. Instead of meeting just a couple of times a year and making do with some 'high altitude f****.
A large body of research has shown that - with heterosexuals - the hormones which produce the 'high of love' last only 18-24 months. And that is why many humans flit from partner to partner in search of that initial feeling.
Why would it be any different for a gay couple? Here, the fact that Jack and Ennis see so little of each other might be the thing keeping their passion alive. If they were to actually live together, might not things change and sour - like in the regular man and wife relationship?
Also it's not clear what the relationship is about - besides sex. Given that men and women are always moaning that 'we are so different and don't understand each other', does that problem get solved with same sex couples?
Anyhow, I am no expert on this subject. But I don't agree with the experts who've put Brokeback Mountain on a pedestal. It a strictly ok movie.
The first half an hour almost put me to sleep. The two men mumble some dialogue on screen which you have to strain hard to hear (yaar subtitles hi daal dete!). Things improve a bit as more characters enter.
The predicament of Ennis' wife is particularly hard hitting. She realises pretty early on that her husband is not catching any fish on his fishing trips with Jack Twist. The scene where she confronts him - years`later - is one of the best in the film.
So, Ang Lee got the Oscar for best director. I guess he deserves it just for being to portray a subject like this without inducing puke from the audience. Showing two men kissing in an 'artistic' manner does take a high level of artistry.
Apparently, after the release of the film a number of 'brokeback marriages' have come to light. A New York Times article notes that an estimated 1.7 million to 3.4 million American women were once or are now married to men who have sex with men.
Which is why I think the film touched a chord in that country. I am sure there are similar cases in India - but not at that scale. Yet.
So go watch the film just to see what the fuss is all about. And for the beauty of Brokeback - not the metaphor but the mountain itself. The old nature vs nurture debate takes on a whole new 'meaning' (the spectacular scenery which might put anyone 'in the mood' :)
Naturally, what's shown on screen is making many people - men, especially - squirm in their seats. But are they all getting grossed out by two men making out, or are some feeling uncomfortable because they're NOT feeling as grossed out as they think
they should?
In the United States during the 2004 elections, exit polls indicated 4% of all voters self-identified as gay or lesbian. Plus, you have bisexuals. If human beings really are 'similar', if homosexuality is not a cultural thing that means we have a large, large number of people here who are either not aware of being thus inclined or not acknowledging it.
And that, may be the real genius of Brokeback Mountain.
Update: Rituparno Ghosh, on Brokeback
As I skimmed through Mumbai Mirror this morning I realised film maker Rituparno Ghosh and I had pretty much the same reaction after watching Brokeback Mountain! He didn't like it at all...
He commented: "The director was apologetic about his protagonists' mutual attraction. The idea seems to be, ‘Look they aren't gay. But when two heterosexual males are thrown together in solitude, love may happen’. I found it contrived".
Yehi to mera point tha! The central relationship between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllanhall did not work for Ghosh.
"The ambience was too pretty and it took away from the central relationship. Given a choice between the shots of nature and the human bonding, I preferred the former... Sanjay Suri and Purab Kohli in My Brother Nikhil were able to convey so much more without physical intimacy".
So it's not about being pro or anti gay. Sometimes a movie doesn't work for you. And this was one such time for both me, the Saturday night moviegoer and Ghosh - a seasoned director.
My other observation about the attraction remaining strong because they meet so rarely also applies to heterosexual couples. Often, illicit affairs give that kind of high - simply because two people don't spend quantity time and discover the bad side of each other. And the 'forbidden fruit' is always exciting!
amida, you missed the point. anyways.
ReplyDeleterashmi, you should see "Kinsey". It's a movie about a professor named Kinsey who did research in the 1940s or so about the "Sexual Behavior" in males and females. Good story, long film, but you'll notice there how homosexuality was rampant and yet, people would have been killed if it were known.
I saw Brokeback and was soo oooo bored watching it that I was trying to drink ice through a straw. The dialogues were spaced out so far apart it was sometimes like a nagesh kukonoor movie (read: hyderabad blues 2).
But you're right - there could be a huge amount of homosexuality in India, and it's just being denied. One of my friends recently came out of the closet; and his parents said "Oh, that will all get fixed once he gets married".
FYI .. I'm not a gay .. and secondly
ReplyDelete1) Yes. The 2 become gay only bcoz of the lack of entertainment options .. just like wat u saw in Fire .. and just like wat u saw in all other movies which show the metamoprphosis of a person into a gay/lesbian (remember, obviously im not talking abt movies which show people already turned into gay/lesbians and are busy all the time making out thereafter - sorry, if u find that offensive)
and yeah, i believe, that being gay is all about biological dispositions and behavorial abonormalities, which a person only discovers under particular circumstances. Afterall when have u seen people discovering themselves while playing soccer or while piddling .. never !!
and guess wat, it's silly and i can't stop meself shruggin it off, that u manipulated that 18-24 months wala funda to deduce that the fact that their duration of meetings over all these years could not have exceeded that time limit due to occasional meetings, is the reason that their love never faded.
and don't blame the film if u failed to make out the dialogues .. for heath ledger has a great accent and was a perfect cast for the role, i believe .. i pity all those people who r put down by these serious dramas just bcoz they cannot put any effort into understanding the situations .. or dialogues for that matter.
and puke ?? for god's sake they are not making porn movies my dear ..
i wud like a reply from ur side ..
hey rashmi;
ReplyDeletethanx............finally someone has come out with the simple truth.
You know i can respect the sentiments in the movie but it seeme like their relationship is more sex based than feeling based.....i was particularly annoyed by the scene when Jack seeks out a giglo...it made me want scream and ask......what the hell is going on here......
There is an interesting question that can be asked on this subject. If we were not 'educated' from our childhoods about the relationship between a man and a woman, would men still have a preference for women over other men, and vice versa? I think a majority would still have a preference for a heterosexual person than a homosexual person, because as human beings we are naturally attracted towards the opposite sex. But having said that, I also feel that the relative proportion of people that would prefer a homosexual person would have been higher than now, because exercising that option right now is fraught with societal risks and it is human nature to avoid risks.
ReplyDeleteArtistry or otherwise, it was pretty awkward to watch the movie with a guy friend (no sexual tones, yuck) and go out of the audi for popcorn. Two guys coming back in was awkward.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know filth is in the eyes of the leer holder but all of the audience is not sophisticated or forgiving to not draw parallels.
All in all, not a 'cool' movie and means unnecessary shit for guys who genuinely go for fishing, camping, cigarette breaks or whatever. Ang Lee tu to gaya.
I thought the shots of the mountain area were enchanting in that welcome to Marlboro country kinda way..
ReplyDeleteWestern civilisation loves the idea of romantic love, and it has been obsessed over in every possible way, in varying degrees of codependency, adversity, and scenery. The whole concept of forbidden love, it's been done to death.
I think the movie has been overhyped because *gasp* it's about two homos. It's the like same kinda overreaction when Sharon Stone showed her muff in Basic Instinct.. or when Janet Jackson flashed her tits for 1/10th of a second.
...on " men, especially - squirm in their seats." Which is quite true, what you observed. And the fear in everybody's mind,"what if it turns me on". I made that remark on my mini review of Pedro Almodovar's "la Mala Educacion"
ReplyDeletefor me brokeback was just another faltu film..even here in guwahati...we downloaded it only after it was nominated for Oscars...The thing is Oscars creat hype and that increases sales..it's just another marketting gimmick of teh producers..and donno..why ang lee received the oscars for best director...
ReplyDeleteand regarding the homo thing...who cares.and if at all it is shown on big screen ..so what..I doonno what the fuss is all abt..?so two guys do a thing..so what? it's personal
While I totally understand that you can get bored of the movie (I did), but you have to put yourself in the shoes of a Southern American to understand the movie. If you do, it is really quite fascinating.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the accents can be weird, because on Indian television, you are generally exposed to the North Eastern, bostonian and New york accents, that you find in Friends and Boston Legal. Even many americans struggle to grasp the southern American accent.
But mostly, this film hits hard because it brings down illusions about a very powerful American symbol. The testosterone, heroic, brave and 100% heterosexual Cowboy. It has the same effect on Americans, as a movie showing Gandhi as Hitler's second-in-command would in India. It is this really powerful symbolism that makes this movie so enchanting.
Movie reviews are subjective and your opinion is your own. Evidently you didn't understand the movie, both the language and the content; and that's acceptable. But why did you have to throw in the line about "A large body of research about 'high love' -- like this is a business presentation? Wouldn't then your research make ALL the bollywood movies irrelevant? Your data comprehension is absolutely twisted, so absurd, that you state many humans flit from partner to partner in search of the initial love. If I were to interpret that, it would be that the 'initial love' phase lasts for a couple of years and that's about it. Initial love may be great but at least from my experience people are happy in stable and long lasting relationships( granted the one in the movie is not stable but it was long). In one fall swoop you trashed all the love stories because those are only valid for 18-24months. Read the book "Brokeback mountain", if you want to understand more; it's only a few pages.
ReplyDeleteA confusing blog. Is it a movie review or are you asking fundamental questions/ passing judgement about gay-ness and love? Your opinion on the movie I can understand. Brokeback Mountain is a type of movie that a lot of people find extremely boring...and a lot of people love. In my mind, it is in the same genre as Out of Africa, Remains of the Day, The English Patient (all Oscar-feted movies, by the way). I personally love them. They are all at heart love stories, they have a lyricism to them, there is a slow beauty and they touch a deep chord somewhere in me. But it is subjective, and that I understand.
ReplyDeleteBut the rest of the article, what was that about? You first ask 'Do the two cowboys become gay because of lack of entertainment options?' and then you kind of answer it in your 2nd point when you say 'The fact that the affair continues long after means the cowboys weren't gay by accident but inherently so.'...and so what's your point?? And then those other throw-away comments ...something about how their passion is probably kept alive because of their separation and how the high of love cannot survive some mythical time frame....and some question about same sex couples being able to understand each other better than heterosexual ones...what is all this about? Maybe you should do a whole article (and a much better researched one than this) about the concept of homosexuality. It's definitely a very relevant topic for today's youth in India. You need to do a lot better than this, though, that's for sure.
I actually liked the movie. The first half hour wasn't too bad for me. I enjoyed the Canadian landscape. No. Actually, I absolutely loved the gorgeous Canadian lanscape as well as the music. I don't know, I just felt that despite the apparent silence, so much was said between the two. There were certain scenes, for e.g. when Heath succumbs to his pain and starts crying, or when his wife confronts him, etc. that were absolutely fantastic. Imagine being raised by an abusive father and made to witness the atrocities committed against homosexuals in the west. I thought Heath was simply brilliant. I mean, you could really see all those bottled up emotions suddenly finding a release with Gyllenhaal. His loneliness, his acceptance of things, his walk, his random fight with a pick-up truck drive just to get that feeling out... he really made you feel his pain. I was rooting for him to win Best Actor. I actually found Capote dreadfully boring, but have to admit that Phillip Seymour Hoffman was outstanding, which sucks, because I was totally wanted Heath Ledger to win. As an afterthought, it's got to be hard to be straight and still pull off a gay role with such brilliance.
ReplyDelete"I guess he deserves it just for being to portray a subject like this without inducing puke from the audience. Showing two men kissing in an 'artistic' manner does take a high level of artistry."
ReplyDeleteRashmi, your writing ususally shows some of the sensitivity that a finite, non-zero IQ brings. But this comment was really weird, and fairly anti-gay. If anything your unsubtle bigotism is what's making me puke right now. I'm disappointed in a co-IIM grad.
Not-so-subtle homophobia aside, there are some key points in this post that need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteIf you read Annie Proulx's original short story, you'd understand that Brokeback is at its very core Ennis del Mar's story. It is a very human portrayal of love denied - both by social tabboos and by Ennis' attempts to deny it.
For me, the most powerful scene and performance in the film is when Ennis meets Jack's parents. The pathos of Jack's mother is expressed entirely through her eyes.
Ultimately, love finds expression in a rainbow (pun intended) of possibilities, and the fact that Ennis and Jack's love was manifest in a couple of high altitude f***s doesn't detract from the fact that they truly loved each other.
There's no need to speculate on the whys and hows of Jack and Ennis' sexuality. What's important is that it happened. They fell in love period, and they didn't have a cultural matrix within which to express it. That's the real tragedy of this story.
By questioning that they fell in love because they had no other options, you are blindly buying into the fallacy of the normalcy of hetero-normative relationships.
Also, there are scores of gay men in India who live through similar tragedies on a daily basis. References to puking take away from that.
Finally, how many of us truly remember A Beautiful Mind or Shakespeare In Love, both Best Picture Oscar winners. Brokeback is one of those films that will linger in the public consciousness, and fifty years from now will feature as a cinematic masterpiece.
Hi Rashmi
ReplyDeleteAs one of the comments pointed out, I would urge you to watch the movie "Kinsey", about an American professor who, for the first time ever, got candid confessions about the sexual habits of everyday Americans. The results at the time shocked their country. I wish there could be a Kinsey in India. The results would be equally shocking.
Within India, there is a huge population of MSMs - Men who have Sex with Men, a large proportion of whom follow convention and get married to a woman, regardless of their sexual preferences. You can get detailed stats from public health organizations working with this population, such as the Humsafar Trust in Mumbai - or even MCGB. These stats might surprise you. MSMs exist across class/caste/religious boundaries. There may be several in your building, for example.
Do you think this is healthy? Would you want to be the woman married to such a man? If not, how do you, as the editor of a youth magazine, work towards a society where homosexual men are not forced into marrying a woman? If you believe in the statistics, a small percentage of your readers are grappling with these feelings themselves. Do you create a hetero-normative environment, and drive them to despair, and eventually an unhappy "Brokeback" marriage? Or do you create an open-minded pluralistic environment where young people feel like they have a choice. Cause the only real choice in homosexuality is being true to yourself, or not.
Ameet
PS: More food for thought. Modern Indian norms on morality and sexuality are eerily similar to those from Victorian England. In contrast, ancient Indian cultural records are replete with references to an open-minded, permissive society. (For example, Khajuraho, and Kama Sutra - can you imagine the controversy if someone put figures of naked men and women on their front gate today?) Could it be that we're holding on to a colonial legacy and not aware of it?
Hi to Rashmi and all others who regularly read this blog.
ReplyDeleteLike all of you I agree that this is one of the sensible blogs around, but what I have observed is that our comments are either going unnoticed by the respectable author of this blog or she is too busy to comment on our poor arguments.
Whatever the case may be, even as I am writing this comment I know the rest of the story..Our author will see whether there are any new comments or not and reluctantly read the new comment and then shrug it off like all others..
A faint smile appears on her lips as she watches us fighting out for a comment on her blog..
No hard feeings mam and with all due respect I will be eagerly waiting for your next column..
Regards..
If I may, I should like to pass you over to qcubed.blogspot.com for an incisive dekko at homosexuality demystified.
ReplyDelete"....large number of people here who are either not aware of being thus declined or not acknowledging it."
Well, hullo, it's a hard sell that.
Most here are acutely aware but coming out scares the pants(or should I say, the boxers) off them.
AK
PS: Maybe now's the time for some Bollywood smart-aleck to pull off a Hinglish version of Brokeback, eh?
Can you imagine that, typo(declined for inclined) while quoting ad verbum?!
ReplyDeleteAm i a homosexual.... Not sure. Really is there much difference!! Figuratively speaking sexual attraction is much abt felling attracted to a physical body, whatever be it's damn anatomy. So in the sexsual context Bi, Homo & all terms are synonyms. Like cases of convicts & street urchins (and Deepa Mehta's protagonists) turning to homosexuality due to lack of other options. It's just another means to sexual gratification.
ReplyDeleteAnd if u really ask what's then real homosexuality.. i.e. wherein a person "falls in love" with person of same sex, wherein it's not sexual attraction that drives them together. Not sure where the boundary stands between sexual love and other wise. Say u are attracted to a person and like his/her company. And when that gets intense u r in love... but not for sexual reasons. So if that's a same sex individual, is that homosexuality. Seems now i'm loosing all consciousness of my sexuality :(..
Anyways Rashmi has opened a rather unusual intrepretation... guys/gals time to search for a nomenclature of yor kind of sexuality. Think abt it....
Actually homosexuality (male) is a genetic effect passed through the X chromosome, or in english, If your mom's male siblings are homosexual, then you stand a high chance of being a homosexual if you are male.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty much well known fact in genetic circles, but somehow doesn't get discussed at all and all movies seem to put the blame on "circumstances". But this one doesn't seem to address those issues directly.
However, the only thing this seems to be good at is picturisation. The natural settings which form a permenant backdrop in the movie is the best part.
ablution central :
ReplyDeletehttp://hometown.aol.com/gaygene/pages/biblio.htm
Is that enough?
Ameet, that was an excellent comment. And yes, kinsey is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteRashmi, I watched Brokeback Mountain with some friends at college after Heath Ledger's death. The group consisted of two straight girls, one gay boy and one bisexual girl. Despite that composition, none of us really liked the movie. Yes, the sex was abrupt, and yes, this is basically a 20 page story somehow spread over three hours.
However, it's folly to think that homosexuality is simply a result of lack of opportunity or of boredom. Acting on one's homosexual impulses, however, may be a result of a certain set of circumstances that would allow one to indulge in behavior that may get one into serious trouble given existing societal norms. That is to say, impulses exist, and one is aware, at some level or the other, of one's sexuality, but one is afraid of/unable to act on that. Consider it... you live in an environment where all you ever see is one thing - love = man + woman. Even if that does not feel right to you, you are forced to accept it, at least on the surface.
By the way, your puking comment... makes me want to puke. What is distasteful about an expression of love, whether it be between two people of the oppostie sexes or two people of the same sex? Please gain some maturity.
However, the choice vs. natural argument isn't that easy to resolve. One of my friends was working with a man who started identifying as gay after he was abused in a prison. I think that man wrote a book called Fish. I haven't looked it up, but it could be interesting.
ReplyDeleteYour claim about "love" only lasting 18-24 months? That ain't love, mate, that's lust. Love can be, and is, usually a lifelong thing. And though Ennis and Jack's relationship seemed purely physical, what they had was love, not just lust. Also, I don't understand why people feel the need to label Brokeback Mountain as a "Gay" Cowboy film. Wouldn't it be easier to leave labels out of it altogether? Are they in Jack and Ennis's heads to determine that the men are exclusively homosexual and not bisexual (ref. Kinsey again)? Whether they spent their entire lives together in a house with a white picket fence, or only met periodically for high altitude f***s is not the point here. The validity and longevity of feelings would probably have been the same in either case.
As for the scale in India of "Brokeback Marriages"? Probably much higher. Just without the labels. As Ashok Row Ravi once said somewhere, in India, men who have sex with men tend to look upon such relationships as just an activity, and not a commitment. That, too, has to do with how our society is set up. Our society won't permit two men to set up a household together, so most won't even entertain the possibility. People do that -- deny the existence of outcomes that aren't really possible.