The movie was based on a short story that appeared in the New Yorker magazine back in 1998 or 1999, some time around then. It got a lot of attention because it was kind of a first for Hollywood. It helps break the stereotype that rugged men (blue collar workers, ranch hands, etc.) aren't gay. Hollywood and society has often depitcted gays as being highly effiminate, cross-dressers, people who talk with a lisp, or walk around with a bent wrist, and are into art, interior design, and fashion, etc. In recent years, those stereotypes are slowly being changed in Hollywood--in tv and movies--and we are seeing gays portrayed in a variety of ways. Yes, there are highly effiminate and strange gay people out there, but that is not a reflection of us all. I am gay, but I don't exactly fit the stereotype. I am a virgin by choice. I do not go to gay bars or act effeminate. I like watching auto racing, baseball, boxing, and tennis. I do have an interest in interior design, but mainly from an architectural point of view (I can not stand froo-froo interiors with pinks and fluffy pillows with girly, flower prints). The movie is also important in how it depicts what being gay in the late 1950's/early 60's was like. The characters in the movie did not consider themselves gay and they went on and got married and had children. That was life back then. In some ways still, it is life for some now. I know of someone who is forced by his dad to stay in the closet and get married. His dad is famous in our city and has a well-known reputation for his business. His 20-something year old son is gay, I had fallen in love with him, but his dad wants to keep him in the closet. In fact, his dad threatened me. The funny thing is that I am 100% positive that his dad is also gay, but the dad does not act on it. Have you ever heard of "gaydar"? His dad also overcompensates for a lot by running around with girls 30 years younger than him and driving Hummers, etc. His dad grew up in a time when it was not acceptable to be gay and he got married twice and divorced twice and now tries to overcompensate for what I can tell is his gayness, and he tries to keep his adult gay son in the closet and having no contact with me.
There are all kinds of people in this world. There is diversity even within the "gay community." Not all gays are girly or even whores for that matter. Just as not all heterosexuals are all the same. How many heterosexuals are seen in movies and on sitcoms sleeping around all the time. Most of my heterosexual friends are good-looking, but they are virgins. They are choosing to wait till they get married. They are offended at times by what they see on tv and in film. Not all black people are the same. Hollywood once portrayed blacks as being simple minded people, placing them in small comedy roles. Slowly that began to change with the advancement in the civil rights movement. The same thing is going on in Hollywood with its portrayal of gays. I am sorry this was a long answer. I just lipped off in somebody else's question about how people were writing obnoxiously long answers. I hope this clarified things a bit. You don't have to like Brokeback Mountain, but at least try to understand why it is somewhat important. I liked it, but I am actually glad that the Oscar for Best Picture went to Crash--I thought Crash was truly the better film.
2006-06-08 16:00:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zippy 3
·
7⤊
2⤋
I thought it was *excellent*. It follows VERY closely to the short story it is based on by Annie Proulx.
Yes, it was sad, but not all movies are happy. Some of the best movies are sad movies. It was controversial and risky (why, I still don't understand) so it got a lot of hype for that reason... but I do think it stands on its own.
2006-06-08 14:53:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by LeLee 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree it was a piece of crap. Its been done a million times with male and female so the attraction was the males together. i hated this movie and although I am a fan of HL and Jake I will probably never really enjoy them on the big screen without being haunted by that stupid movie.
2006-06-08 15:05:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by annie red 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not everyone has the same taste as you. Some things YOU like may not appeal to others in the same way that Brokeback Mountain appealed to some folk but not you. It is called LIFE.
2006-06-08 14:17:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I guess it had Heath Ledger and Jack Gyllenhall in it, or maybe it's because you never really see a movie with two homosexual cowboys.
2006-06-08 14:18:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kevin_Widing 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Takes all sorts ----- but i thort it was a BEAUTIFUL film, art-wise and in terms of character development and hopefully, it helps the general public to understand a subject that is kinda 'taboo'
I loved it
2006-06-08 14:23:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by laylaUnplugged 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't like the story...it has been done 100000+ times...only difference is the fact that it is a story between two men...I don't like the actors and don't care if they fall in love....If it was porn (with porn stars) then maybe I would have watched again!
2006-06-08 14:17:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by USuck79 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
My friend and i laugh thru most of it... at Heath Ledger trying to do an accent... he may be good eye candy and a pretty good actor, but is hopeless at accents!
2006-06-08 14:27:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by jubiejubejubajube 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know. It was a dumb gay cowboy movie. I hated it. Even Willie Nelson had to go and write a gay cowboy song. I was like "What's up with that?"
2006-06-08 14:21:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It sucks!!! How many more gay cowboy movies do we need!?
2006-06-08 14:26:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by John Doe 2
·
0⤊
0⤋