Brokeback Mountain

For more than an hour after seeing the film last night I couldn’t talk. All I could do was struggle to hold back tears, and keep from being overcome by a flood of memories of opportunities lost, of friends who aren’t with me anymore, and of the “eternal note of sadness” that defines human existence.

I went to the movie with low expectations, since it has been hyped so much. Gay cowboys, I thought – who cares? But Brokeback Mountain is not a movie about gay cowboys. It is much more than that, an understated thinking man’s movie that forces viewers to think hard about their own lives and the lives of the people they love and who love them.

There are moments in this movie that are so painful, so poignant that I know it will take me some weeks to get over them. The image of a shirt on a clothes hanger at the end and all that it represents is so agonizing, so impossibly painful I have to force myself to think about something else.

There is nothing sensual or erotic about Brokeback Mountain, and there’s no “action” to speak of. Every scene is underplayed, the dialogue sparse, which only adds to the near-unbearable sense of loneliness it conveys. After watching it, I kept thinking of those pangs we all feel at times, those moments when we suddenly think about how things might have been if only we hadn’t done what we did years ago; moments so painful and piercing, so aching, reminding us of our disappointments and broken dreams, that all we can do is hold them down and fight to expunge them.

The lessons: never give up love, never deny what you are, never sacrifice what you hold most dear to your heart. I’ll be thinking about these things for a very long time, and will never think about love in quite the same way.

The Discussion: 51 Comments

I saw Brokeback Mountain as well. I do not think it is any better or worse than most other romance movies. However, I hope it wins an Oscar, simply because Ang Lee is Chinese.

I do wonder about this: if society were to openly embrace gays, then what about inc*st? Is there a rational argument against a brother and a sister loving each other and having s*x with each other? Right now, our society is more tolerant towards gays than inc*st. But what about gays that makes it more acceptable than inc*st? Would it be possible that 50 years from now, there’ll be a huge social movement to accept inc*st as a valid lifestyle, just like gays?

February 5, 2006 @ 7:23 pm | Comment

Well, for once I’ll actually give China Hand credit for his having asked a truly logical question which merits a logical answer. (Pity that he’s not yet able to do this whenever the question concerns China, but still, THIS question was a logical one.)

My immediate thoughts:

1. The traditional legal AND religious prohibitions against sex between siblings, has principally been because it tends to produce genetically defective babies. The situation of gays is entirely opposite of this, as gay sex does not produce any babies at all. But a corrollary is warranted here, to be more clear about this “health concern”:

1.a. You can say that sometimes gay sex leads to sexually transmitted diseases – but so can straight sex, if people are careless. Therefore, when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases, gays and straights are equally vulernable. But this is NOT the case with sex between siblings, which has a categorical tendency to produce extremely sick offspring.

2. However, in the long run the potential problems of inc3st are self-limiting, because for various complex reasons, Humans tend psychologically to be repelled by any suggestion of sex with their siblings.
It seems to be something Nature has hard-wired into Human brains, as a way of protecting the species. So, there’s really not much need to worry about millions of people shagging their siblings in the coming years.

On the other hand, Nature ALSO seems to have programmed a consistent minority of Humans to be attracted to the same sex. It’s not clear why, but it’s consistent through all history and all cultures – just like the natural Human aversion to inc3st is consistent through all cultures. (Although it gets fuzzy when you get to cousins and more distant relatives.)

Finally, Cleopatra was technically “married” to her little brother (King Ptolemy the whatever, the 16th or something), and she hated his guts and wanted nothing to do with him. Thus, yes you will find SOME examples of legal marriages between brother and sister, mostly in Royal families and for symbolic reasons. But Cleopatra’s case is typical – she despised her brother and they never had sexual relations.

I mean, let’s get realistic. How many brothers and sisters can even STAND each other’s company, even for a few hours at Christmas? ๐Ÿ™‚

February 5, 2006 @ 7:50 pm | Comment

PS, and a fortiori, you could take China Hand’s argument further and ask, “Would it be possible that 50 years from now, there will be a huge social movement to accept sex with sheep and cows as a valid lifestyle?”

Well it’s not bloody likely.

February 5, 2006 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

So you think Ang should win based on his race? Isn’t that, um, racist?

About ince*t…. Your comment really makes me wonder whether you’re a joker, or an idiot, or a bit of both. Here’s why:

Gays represent anywhere from 4 to 10 percent of the world’s population, depending on your sources. You know people who are gay. People in your family are gay. There’s evidence there may be a “gay gene.” People know they are gay at a very, very early age, and there is nothing to be done except accept it. Gays are everywhere and they always have been. History tells us so. (Ask the first Emperor Qin.)

Ince*t, like bestial*ty, is an act of depravity. There is nothing natural about it. Unlike homosexuals, performers of ince*t are not ubiquitous, they aren’t everywhere. It takes an extremely unusual circumstance to turn someone into a practitioner of inc*st or bestial*ty. It is rare and it is sick. Some of yor friends are gay; it’s highly unllikely any of them practice inc*st or bestial*ty. Throughout history, including your great Chinese history, homosexuality has been part of man’s culture, part of his existence, in a way bestial*ty and ince*t are not. To draw a comparison like this betrays your deep ignorance and obliviousness of fundamental psychology, history and human nature. Practitioners of inc*st have never represented a vast segment of the population as have gays. There is literally no comparison, except in the eyes of the ignorant. It is a common trick used by Evangelical Christians when the subject of gay marriage arises. “If we legalize that, won’t we have to legalize inc*st and bestial*ty?” Well, I suppose if a vast movement representing a huge swath of humanity were to emerge that is addicted to inc*st or bestial*ty, perhaps we’d have to consider it. But the comparison is entirely bogus, a bullshit argument designed to obfuscate and scare people. So I’m not at all surprised that you would eagerly adopt the argument as your own, China Hand. You are always consistent.

February 5, 2006 @ 8:05 pm | Comment

Oops. I spoke too soon, too hopefully, about China Hand becoming “logical.” See his recent comment in the open thread, where he said, “tonight, I’m an Arab” – written in complete ignorance (or sloppy disregard) of the fact that not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs – and a lot of Muslims are in China…..

February 5, 2006 @ 8:10 pm | Comment

You said inc*st is depraved but homos*xuality is not. Well why is inc*st depraved? If a man truly loves his sister in a romantic and sexual one, what part of human morality stops him from loving her? I mean what if a man genuinely loves her sister? Should he try to suppress his feelings? Forget about the percentage of inc*sts in the world, I’m just talking about a hypothetical individual case. Say you know a friend who confesses to you and he and his sister both love each other, and they made love in her bedroom last week. If we were to accept homos*xuality, I don’t see what’s wrong with accepting inc*st.

BTW, I’m not against homos*xuality, I think the society should adopt a “do not prohobit, and do not encourage” attitude towards g*ys.

February 5, 2006 @ 8:37 pm | Comment

Most humans learn early on that it is inappropriate (to say the least) to make physical love to their siblings. This truly can be learned. Most of us learn it rather early, and without difficulty. Haven’t you? Homosexuality doesn’t work that way. You can “teach” people that being gay is wrong, but that won’t change them. They are gay. No one is born an inc*st pratitioner. For gays, it often seems to be something they are born into.

I think the society should adopt a “do not prohobit, and do not encourage” attitude towards g*ys.

Whoever said any society should encourage gays? There is nothing to encourage. Either you are gay or you aren’t. It can’t be encouraged, and reversing courses can’t be encouraged either. It doesn’t work that way.

February 5, 2006 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

I’m having a good discussion with ACB on this topic right now, on her site. See her “Banned in China” story. She claims to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuality but she is pretty conservative actually and thinks marriage is morally the right thing to do and good for society and stuff.

February 5, 2006 @ 9:48 pm | Comment

and by the way, that’s a beautiful description of your feelings about the film that you written here. I was moved like this too but you have said it all more beautifully than I ever could.

February 5, 2006 @ 10:09 pm | Comment

China_Hand, then are you for homosexualit* only if inc*st could be made sensible for you?
No body ever encouraged homosexualit*. This movie didn’t either. So the comment, “I think the society should adopt a “do not prohobit, and do not encourage” attitude towards g*ys.” is basically idiotic garbage. Many societies, however, has long prohibited and persecuted g8ys.
China_Hand, you ARE against it. There IS tremendous, inherent difference between two unrelated men in a sexual relationship and one between 2 siblings. That difference is huge, and if you fail to see it, you are really an unfit adult to comment here on this topic.
BTW, I think you don’t want Ang Lee to win an Oscar. We all know he wouldn’t want one just because he is “Chinese”. He also has said that he is more bougeoise American. So here you go.

February 5, 2006 @ 11:23 pm | Comment

I agree chester. china-Hand is just expressing a view that is homophobic though he does it politley and in a round bout way. ACB is the same, she claims to be tolerant and accepting of gays while at the same time she says that she believes the superior morality of marriage and that marriage is good for overall health of societies and that people like MAJ are immoral for not marrying long term partners and stuff like that.

February 5, 2006 @ 11:37 pm | Comment

Roland,
I actually think a good marriage CAN BE very positive for the society. Alas, many marriages were no good and resulted from bad beginnings.
Yes, I share your dissatisfaction with the hypocritical “tolerance”. Tolerance has been the political buzz word of the Left and it basically condoned and sugar-coated fundamental dissapproval and denial of humanity to the “commrads’.

February 5, 2006 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

Haven’t seen the movie yet. But after rich’s comments on it, I think I just might.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:02 am | Comment

I’m not sure if china_hand is homophobic, and his comment isn’t entirely defensible, since incxest has certain biological implications regarding health, as well as pedxphilic issues (like a father with daughter), so there are additional grounds against it.

However, an analogous point to China_hands regarding gaxy marraiges I do see some reason for discussion: If gaxy marriages are allowed (and I’m not against them, perhaps calling them civil unions would keep the religious at bay), why wouldn’t polxygamy be allowed? I’m sure we can find three people who love each other just as much as any couple, and would care for their children with just as much love. Why not polygaxmy?

February 6, 2006 @ 12:04 am | Comment

skystreaker I have nothing against ploygamy either. Why not legalize it? It should be legal.

And Ivan, in the thread above you accuse me of bashing Richard’s site elsewhere, a vindictive thing for you to accuse me of simply because I chipped you about your nastiness towards other readers and the way you use insulting language to lower the tone of this site. If you think i have bashed this site then prove it. Where I have ever bashed this site and how?

February 6, 2006 @ 12:22 am | Comment

skystreaker-
The whole discussion is NOT about birth defect concern, because the biological factor is simply not adequate. In China_hand’s way of argument, what if 2 siblings engage in sexual conduct with contraception methods and protection thus having no danger of conceiving? Would that make incxst ok? I think not.
China_Hand IS homophobic, he thinks of it as something society shouldn’t “encourage it”. He already attempted to equate incexst and homosexualit*. That is beyond arguing for or against “marriage” between 2 men and 2 women. Please, be respectful.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Roland,

I have told Richard where that site is.
It is up to him to mention it here if he wants to.

Furthermore, why did you lie about ACB’s “Banned in China” thread? I have just read it (again) and it contains nothing of the homophobia you accuse it of – quite the opposite.

Who are you working for, and why are you trying to slander ACB? (whose site is blocked in China, but there is a mirror site….)

February 6, 2006 @ 12:31 am | Comment

And, roland, when did ACB EVER accuse ANY individual person of being “immoral” for not being in a conventional marriage – as you accused ACB of doing, above?

February 6, 2006 @ 12:33 am | Comment

Ivan, I look forward to hearing from richard about this charge that i have somehow bashed his site. i certainly don’t ever remember doing that. why not email me and tell me the site so i can check this claim myself.

and I am having a friendly discussion with ACB but i do think she is inconsistent in her views. she is not overtly homophobic i nevr said she was. I said she claims marriage is morally superior to living in sin. she accuses the MAj guy of being a pervert and sinner for not marrying his girl and she criticizes him for taking porno shots with his girl and says that it is bad for a white guy to do so with a chinese girl. this to me smacks of racism even if ACB isn’;t conscioiusly meaning to be racist. that’s all I was saying. People can easily go and read it for herself.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:44 am | Comment

Folks, this thing about “roland” will have to wait until tomorrow to be sorted out – as both of our moderators, Richard and Lisa, are in America now, where it’s late at night.

All I’ll add here is, everyone, look carefully at “roland’s” various comments above, and see if anything jumps out at you, anything that you can see simply does NOT BELONG HERE because it’s against Richard’s rules – and that’s why I’m not saying it.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:44 am | Comment

Ivan how am i breaking richard’s rules? why do you explain to me which rule i am breaknig and i will gladly stop breaking it.

and once again where have i ever bashed this site? never to my knowledge so why be so nasty ivan? you can’t take criticizm so you accuse me of breaknig rules and bashing this site somewhere else. unbelivable!

February 6, 2006 @ 1:05 am | Comment

We are rooting for Ang Lee here because he is Taiwanese not Chinese. (not as China_hand sees him)

If we were strict about it we would classify him as Chinese Taiwanese just as in America they speak of Italian Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans, Taiwanese Americans etc.

If anyone is wondering on some other classifications here we have Aborigenes Taiwanese (we could actually break that down by tribes but lets leave it general), Japanese Taiwanese, Dutch Taiwanese etc. You get the picture.

However I would like to push the discussion on a different track–I have found Ang Lee to be a talented and diverse director having seen his earlier works that include Wedding Banquet (related topic) and Eat, Drink, Man, Woman up through Sense and Sensibility, Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger etc.; he is not afraid to take on new genres.

I would like to ask those who are more film buffs–do you think an American Director could have pulled off Brokeback Mountain, given the cowboy culture being indigenous; if so, which Director could you see taking this on?

February 6, 2006 @ 2:43 am | Comment

Roland,

Richard has an email from me, with the address of the website forum where you bashed him. Now he knows, and that’s all that matters.

You got sloppy and I was able to track down your identity.

And finally – although on the one hand I resist saying this because it’s almost like a schoolboy fight – but on the other hand that’s how you’re acting, so here you go: I have a hell of a lot more credibility here than you do, especially with Richard. He of all people here, knows that I can be trusted. If you’re trying to discredit me here, your messing with the wrong person.

And all of his friends can see how you broke his rules in one of your above comments. They will know what I’m referring to, if they scroll up and look for it.

And now I’m going to stop, because I can see that someone behind the scenes is trying to bait me into saying more and starting a shit-storm of confusion. And Richard’s friends all know “what”
I’m referring to. (“what”, like an insect.) I’ll just leave it at this, until Richard gets back online to clean this shit up.

February 6, 2006 @ 5:44 am | Comment

Ivan i really don’t know what on earth you are babbling on about here. Nobody is working behind the scenes to discredit you, you’re doing a good job with that yourself. Are you into conspiracies are you? and i look forward to hearing all about this site where i am accused by you of bashing richard’s site. it doesn’t really exist does it? i don’t recall ever bashing richard’s site and if i have i do apologize to richard. and i’ve read his rules and i can’t see how i have ever broken any of them. I can see that you regularly break his rules though, by showing other readers “blatant disrespect” by insulting them with bad language, as i quoted an example of in the open thread above.

February 6, 2006 @ 6:00 am | Comment

Skystreaker asked:

If gaxy marriages are allowed (…), why wouldn’t polxygamy be allowed?

Three reasons:

(1) You are postulating a “slippery slope” argument, i.e. claiming one thing will necessarily lead to another, when there is no demonstrated linkage between the two events.

(2) There is a big difference between being allowed to marry as often as you like, and being allowed to marry AT ALL. In this respect, marriage is like voting. If we give women the right to vote, does that mean we must also allow other people to vote multiple times? No, multiple voting is a completely different issue than universal suffrage, and must be argued on its own merits. Ditto polygamy.

And the obvious, but often overlooked:

(3) Polygamy is a choice, homosexuality is not, which also makes them two entirely different issues.

February 6, 2006 @ 6:40 am | Comment

Richard mentioned:

Gays represent anywhere from 4 to 10 percent of the world’s population

Let me also add that it is in no way a “human” thing. Homosexality is common throughout the animal world, and has even been observed among some insects(!).

It’s been documented by biologists among pretty much all types of mammals – including parenting by homosexual couples in some species. It seems especially common among the mammals we usually consider the most intelligent (canines, big cats, dolphins, whales, elephants, virtually all primates).

Please remember this next time you hear someone say homosexuality is “not natural”. In fact, it would be “unnatural” if it wasn’t found among humans.

So, if you have a problem with gays, I sincerely hope you never encounter a pair of lesbian grizzlies (raise cubs together, hibernate near each other) or male killer whales (seem to love to get it on with other males). ๐Ÿ˜‰

February 6, 2006 @ 7:13 am | Comment

What’s so unnatural and depraved about inc*st? I believe it’s quite common practice among animals, as well as homos*xuality. People just learned it’s not healthy, there were economic reasons against it (and sometimes in favor of it) and also when you grow up beside someone, it’s difficult to feel attracted to him s*xually. But I don’t think it’s fundamentally and inherently wrong.

February 6, 2006 @ 7:15 am | Comment

Dr Anne:

For the Record, ACB believe in monogomy, gay or straight, and that marriage is the ultimate experession of that comitment.

She also believes that the legal protection offered by marriage in the west (including custody of children, next of kinship, and the inheritance of pension and life insurance rights) make marriage a socially responsible thing to do for the sake of children and the surviving partner in the event of a tragidy.

February 6, 2006 @ 9:21 am | Comment

roland, ENOUGH.
Shanghai Slim, I had a gay rooster awhile back.

February 6, 2006 @ 9:23 am | Comment

Yuanme,

When I was a young boy, I had two gay ducks. (Peking ducks, literally.)

I named them “Kung and Fu.” Seriously.

I wanted to name them “Sodom and Gomorrah,” but my mother wouldn’t let me. (Again, this is a true story.)
๐Ÿ™‚

February 6, 2006 @ 9:25 am | Comment

I heard that there are also gay penguins in some Germany zoo, but that a civil liberties group was protesting about them being declared to be gay in case the zoo tried to force them to be straight.

February 6, 2006 @ 9:40 am | Comment

Ivan,

I had a lame duck. Seriously. I named him Donald.

February 6, 2006 @ 9:40 am | Comment

Okay, okay. This whole hom*sexuality vs. inc*st thing is ridiculous.

In response to Jerome’s question about which American director could also take on Brokeback Mountain – I was thinking Terrence Malick would’ve done nicely. He doesn’t make many movies nowadays, but whenever he does, by god the results are inevitably excellent.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

Most American directors would be scared to death to be associated with such a movie, I’m afraid. And none is subtle enough to pull it of the way Ang Lee did.

Jerome, thanks for reminding me that he directed The Ice Storm. There are some amazing similarities, including a Thanksgiving turkey that made a powerful statement in The Ice Storm about the emptiness of the characters’ lives. Many other parallels, including the sparse dialogue, understated/restrained approach, and sublime cinematography.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:25 pm | Comment

As for Roland: Ivan is right, you did go to another blog and refer to a China Daily post by an unmentionable, and even were kind enough to drop a link and to voice your agreement (tacitly condemning TPD). This is a tractic the unmentionable commenter frequently uses, and I strongly suspect you are that person. I can’t prove it, but I am watching your comments very carefully. Ivan, good sleuthing.

February 6, 2006 @ 12:28 pm | Comment

If you haven’t already seen them, Tian has some pretty funny Brokeback spoofs.

February 6, 2006 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

” I was thinking Terrence Malick would’ve done nicely. He doesn’t make many movies nowadays, but whenever he does, by god the results are inevitably excellent.”

I agree completely, Nausicaa. I saw The New World (Malick’s new film) over the weekend and found it to be a more compelling tale of forbidden love than Brokeback Mountain. Heath Ledger’s performance was tremendous and Ang Lee (who is Taiwanese, not Chinese by the way)is unquestionably an excellent director, but I wonder if the film would have garnered so many accolades if the protagonists were kept apart by race or class rather than gender.

February 6, 2006 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

“The New World” was actually the film I had in mind, Yixi. Malick’s a wonderfully nuanced and lyrical director, if a bit of a cipher.

The problem I have with Ang Lee – well, not really a problem per se, because he really is very talented and extremely versatile (we shall, ahem, forget clunkers like “The Hulk”) – is that he is the only Taiwanese director known to most people here in the West, but he’s probably the least Taiwanese of all the Taiwanese directors. I mean, you look at his work, and you look at the works of people from the New Cinema school, like Hou Hsiao-hsien or even Tsai Ming-liang, and there’s a big, big difference. He’s much more American than Taiwanese or Chinese, if one thinks about it.

Which makes this whole “rooting by national allegiance” thing even more ridiculous than it already is.

February 6, 2006 @ 6:05 pm | Comment

Richard i am very disappointed that you did not read my comments carefully enough cause i wasn’t bashing your site i even said i disagreed with his calling this blog a hate site, all i said is that i agreed with the ethnocentrism part. aren’t i allowed to have such an opinion? aren’t i allowed to discuss this guy on other blogs?

Because i criticized Ivan for his poor form on tihs site he attacks me and now you accuse of me of being the other guy. What is Ivan here, a rottweiler you employ to protect this site against people who criticize Ivan or who mention the other guy on other peoples sites? Maybe it’s about time you muzzled him!

Ivan you will be happy to know that i won’t be commenting here again so you can continue to behave abnoxiously towards other readers unchallenged.

February 6, 2006 @ 6:37 pm | Comment

“I won’t be commenting here anymore” —

Good lord, where have we heard that line before? (Hint: the answer lies here.

February 6, 2006 @ 6:44 pm | Comment

One of southern Hokkien’s only southern-Hokkien-language bloggers puts it this way: “China and Taioan are separate countries. Taioan and southern Hokkien are culturally similar for the most part. There are some Chinese people that live in Taioan.”

Kudos to Ang Lee for makin’ it. This is a new world we live in.

February 6, 2006 @ 7:22 pm | Comment

Nausicaa,
The Taiwanese film industry is, at present, a funny thing. By and large the directors like Tsai Ming-liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien do quite well on the festival circuit but are ignored by Taiwanese audiences.
I recently had dinner in Taipei with a friend of a friend who has done a good amount of work as cinematographer for Taiwanese directors. He lamented the fact that Taiwan produces a good number of “art house” movies for foreign consumption but rarely makes commercial films which appeal to a domestic audience. I personally think there is room for both but was surprised at how few of my friends whose interest in film is only casual had even heard of Edward Yang’s excellent 2000 film Yi-Yi.

February 6, 2006 @ 7:45 pm | Comment

Liu Yixi-
Um, the Taiwanese film industry has been like how you described for quite a while, not a recent predicament.
That’s quite fine, because art house movie consumptuon is roughly the same every where; an ever growing but not so big niche market.
Mass appeal market has always belonged to the Hollywood, which, whether you like it or not, is very good at satisfying and invested in the popular desires. Art house and mass appeal are 2 separate aspirations. Although an art house can happen to become popular, it is never its primary intention.

February 6, 2006 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

Had Gus van Sant pulled through this movie, it might have been an intriguing production of little popular appeal.

February 6, 2006 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Nausicaa and Yixi, I have not seen New World so I can’t make a comment there, but I will put it on my list.

I would tend to agree with Richard that most current American directors would be afraid to touch a poignant love story that linked gays and cowboys. One that I do think might not be afraid to take it on, if he were still living would be Richard Brooks whose “In Cold Blood” has left a lasting impression. But his resulting story would be quite different from Ang Lees.

I would agree that Ang Lee is in some ways more American that Taiwanese but I would hope that his successes could open the doors a crack for other Taiwanese directors. (I also will forgive Lee the “Hulk;” everyone is entitled to at least one clunker and I do think he was brave to venture into that area)

To Yixi, yes I do think the accolades would not have come if the separation was due to class, that one has been worked to death especially in romantic comedies, but I could possibly see it working in a race disctinction if it took place in a staunchly aparteid society where both were professionals and had to work together or such, or in Nazi Germany pre World War II. (German-Jew match, especially if the woman was German)

This is going back a ways, but I have heard that “Bridges of Madison County” was very popular in China, any reasons why?

February 7, 2006 @ 8:40 am | Comment

Perhaps I should have weighed in earlier, but unfortunately I haven’t seen “Brokeback Mountain.” That’s because it’s not showing in Amsterdam yet.

It opens next week. On Valentine’s Day.

February 7, 2006 @ 2:52 pm | Comment

See it.

February 9, 2006 @ 5:40 am | Comment

I find it sad that a film with two homosexuals in it is considered to be controversial in the US, yet in some countries homosexuality is considered so normal that it even appears in childrens cartoons (and not just edutainment ones, real ordinary every day ones).

Ironically I’ve seen foreign programs being sold or shown in China that have gay characters in, but becasue they aren’t having sex, and because it’s not been explicitly explained that they are homosexuals, most of the audiences never realise that they’re homosexuals. They just think that they’re ‘good friends’

February 9, 2006 @ 9:35 am | Comment

ACB-
I love that; “they just think they are good friends”. heeheehee.
But they too ARE just good friends.
Thanks for the sweet ditty, Mr. Dylan.

February 9, 2006 @ 6:36 pm | Comment

I too cried at the end at the final scene.

The final scene, in Ennis’ trailer, reveals the shirts on a hanger inside the closet door, next to a postcard of Brokeback Mountain, Ennis’ shirt now on the outside, holding Jack’s shirt safe. Then we see Ennis’ face, an almost silent cry from deep in a well of infinite loss, “Jack I swear…”. Ennis who was so hesitant to break off the marriage with his wife, and then even after his divorce feared to stay with Jack in view of societies homophobia promised at last to stay with Jack. The two has finally become one in death. It was almost “I swear if we could do it all over again, I would have went off with you”. It took us twenty years back, when Ennis should have left with Jack and we would have “a happy ever ending”.

February 11, 2006 @ 6:09 pm | Comment

Thank you for the beautiful comment.

February 11, 2006 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.