Steven Greydanus’s review of Brokeback Mountain IS UP.
As you might guess, he gives it significant marks for artistic merit (three and a half stars) but gives it a -4 moral/spirital rating (which is as bad as it can get on his scale), resulting in it having no appropriate audience and an overall recommendability of F.
He thus was able to separate the artistic craftsmanship of the film from its moral content, which is a very important distinction to make. Something can appear beautiful and even moving and still be gravely immorally.
"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).
That’s the thing about sin: If it wasn’t in some way attractive to people, they wouldn’t do it.
Steve also bring out a point that I had been thinking about: When a morally offensive movie has artistic merit, that makes it MORE dangerous, not less, because it is better able to draw the viewer into the immoral worldview of the film than a ham-fisted, low-quality film.
Steve also points out that there are NO sympathetic heterosexual male characters in the film. Homosexual males can get sympathy, and so can heterosexual females, but not heterosexual males. He writes:
The film allows its sexually omnivorous protagonists to be morally ambiguous, and its straight women can be likable or sympathetic. Yet essentially every straight male character in the film is not only unsympathetic, but unsympathetic precisely in his embodiment of masculinity.
In the end, in its easygoing, nonpolemical way, Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than a critique not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself, and thereby of human nature as male and female. It’s a jaundiced portrait of maleness in crisis — a crisis extending not only to the sexual identities of the two central characters, but also to the validity of manhood as exemplified by every other male character in the film. It may be the most profoundly anti-western western ever made, not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.
I’m not sure how to contact Mr. Greydanus personally, but knowing that he ends up here sometimes, I’d like to say that his review is beautifully and thoughtfully written. I’m sure it reflects the movie well (I’ll never know), but it also points very clearly to the cultural problem of discomfort with true masculinity.
and post-heroic
What a great line!
Actually, I think that Greydanus misses the mark. Both Jack and Ennis were very masculine. The critique was not about masculinity itself but of homophobia. True masculinity does not have to be misogynistic. There is a scene in which Jack stands up to his father-in-law because he didn’t want his son to watch TV during the wonderful meal his mother cooked. In his “masculine”, “big-daddy-knows-best” arrogance, he gets up and turns the TV back on. After a frustrated tiff, Jack says something to the effect of, “you are in my house and you will listen to my rules, you arrogant *explitive*”. Is one of these characters not “masculine”? Was Jack standing up for his family and his home somehow feminine? Anyone who says this film is a critique of masculinity is truly confusing misogyny for masculinity. And that’s a problem.
Michael,
By “masculinity” I don’t mean just manly jawlines, muscles, taciturn silences, etc., but authentic manliness in accordance with the truth of human nature, of Christian anthropology, of the natural law (cf. JP2’s “Theology of the Body”).
Jack and Ennis are NOT models of masculinity in this sense. Their whole relationship flies in the face of true masculinity.
As for “homophobia,” the film essentially presents every straight male character as in some way either homophobic, misogynistic, belligerent, or otherwise suffering under some disordered perspective on masculinity — so much so that not one straight male character in the film even rises to the level of audience sympathy, which is not the case with the gay male characters or the straight women.
I’d say that qualifies as an indictment of masculinity, in the true sense of the world.
P.S. I did implicitly praise Jack’s standing up to his overbearing father-in-law (as well as explicitly criticizing the father-in-law for undermining Jack’s parental authority) in the scene you mention. That was a manly act.
But when the most persuasive and sympathetic exhibition of manly behavior comes from a man who regularly has sex with other men, that’s a highly damning statement about the state of masculinity in a film.
The final assault on the Legion of Decency
which turned out to be victorious took place when a movie called the Pawnbroker was released.
The promoters argued for evaluating and rating such movies based not on MORALITY but Artistic merit.
Artistic merit won, and for the first time in 30 years, full frontal nudity was shown on the screen. 3 years later, Deep Throat apppeared.
Under the qualiifcation of Artistic merit, a new dawn was arising.
Later on, Hollywood produced two more films that were propoganda films for porn;
Boogey Nights and the People vs Larry Flynt.
After all, if one cannot watch porn, one is not FREE. Porn equal FREEDOM.
Right?
Of course not, porn is the pathway to undermine and destroy the values of a society, and the one Religion that has defined that high ground is the Catholic Church.
One cannot watch a movie and separate out the parts, by saying it has artistic merit, but is immoral.
If you do, you are accepting the terms of the social engineers, who will give as much artisitic merit as one wants, as long the theme is immoral.
There is plenty of artistic merit in the one handed magazines that have populated store shelves since 1957.
There is plenty of ‘artistic merit’ in the one handed cable shows and other movies made by the film industry.
But should Catholics ever watch such filth. Never.
That’s the thing about sin: If it wasn’t in some way attractive to people, they wouldn’t do it.
This is an important point, and one not lost to the artist. One conundrum that scholars had for years is to try to understand why Milton made the devil such a sympathetic character in Paradise Lost. There were many thoughts concerning this, but one remarkable insight by a Stanley Fish, a young English professor at Berkeley in the 60s, was that Milton was trying to elicit a particular response from the reader, namely one in which he would see how sin could be attractive.
By the way, yes, this is the same Stanley Fish whose post-modernist journal “Social Text” fell victim to the hoax by the physicist Alan Sokal, who submitted an article called “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” that ended up marking the beginning of the end (let’s hope)of the desasterous post-modernist movement. (Also, for those who have read the very funny books by David Lodge, Stanley Fish is the archetype for the character Morris Zapp).
CD,
Of course, no one should ever watch porn. But Brokeback Mountain is not porn — not remotely. It does deal with some very immoral behavior, but so does Jesus of Nazareth (murdering babies, adultery, etc.).
Very immoral behavior happens in the world, and it is legitimate for movies to deal with that fact. The real critical question is, what does the movie say ABOUT these very immoral things? In order to answer that question, someone has to watch the movie and find out what sort of movie it is. That’s where I come in as a film critic.
I watched Brokeback Mountain, and what I found was that it is not only ABOUT very immoral behavior, but it has a very harmful perspective ON that behavior. It is therefore a bad movie, and no one should watch it.
In acknowledging its artistic merit, I’m not remotely recommending that anyone see the film — on the contrary. I’m certifying that I gave the film a fair-minded reading, that I am willing to acknowledge what is good and bad in the film — and that when I say it is a bad movie, it’s not because I was so offended by the subject matter that I didn’t consider the critical questions in a fair-minded way.
“When a morally offensive movie has artistic merit, that makes it MORE dangerous, not less, because it is better able to draw the viewer into the immoral worldview of the film than a ham-fisted, low-quality film.”
And this can be true of books, etc, as well. Case in point, Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy.
The blame for the explosion of bad movies lies with those who make them, and the laws which permit them to be seen by the public. Beyond that, the Catholic leadership, both in America and other countries are required by their office to do all they can do prevent this material from scadalizing the faithful.
In other words, the Bishops are the moral police and they have failed.
The safest route for Catholics and others who do not want to be corrpted by the movie and entertainment industry is to avoid all movies, since even a good movie is preceeded by half a dozen commercials for immoral movies.
A movement to ressurect the Legion of Decency is one step in the right direction.
It forced hollywood to stop making porn, which was becoming big business…back in 1931 !
SG’s review is devastating. He is the most intelligent film reviewer in America. Bar none. And he’s CATHOLIC.
It is important to make the distinction between artistic merit and morality, as Steven did in his review.
There is, in the minds of many, a “halo effect” associated with being an artist.
Often, people act as if the mere fact that someone is an ARTIST gives them a clearer moral vision, when this is demonstrably not the case.
An artist is no more or less qualified to speak on moral issues than anyone. Artistic talent of any kind just has no bearing on moral insight.
None. Trust me.
Eminem is a case in point. Fascinating stuff, but ultimately poisonous.
“If only he had used his powers for good, instead of evil…”.
That is why the Legion of Decency judged films on their moral content.
There is no real artistic merit in the 1953 movie ” Fatima ” but it was popular anyway.
When artistic merit replaced moral content,
it was like opening the front door to the family living room, and letting every rat,shunk, serpent and cockroach inside.
And any house with so much vermin inside it will eventually start to stink, and that is exactly the offering placed before Catholics each time they turn on the TV or visit a movie theatre.
Exercise control over such filth, boycott all movies and TV.
Personally, all this obsessive reglious pontificating is truly annoying; trying to out-do one another with your break-neck bible versus…One feels as if they landed in some disconsolate roadhouse in Alabama!
Perhaps you all need to approach the Brokeback Mountain dialogue from the “internal” thought process of the characters; ruminate on the behaviorisms, whether it be destructive (Ennis) or constructive(Jack), of either character.
Merely looking at it from the “outside only” is ultimately damaging. Stop approaching everything from the religious bent. The Lord gave us brains to use for multi-purposes. You need to remember you are lowly mortals…as we all are. Stop the mud-slinging and judgement calling. Leave that to the Man upstairs!
One last note: Yes, the hetero types in the film are set up to be unsympathetic…it’s called “contrast”…a needed element in good Drama. Not everything is a statement against the heterosexual populace.
Did you read SGD’s review? By the way the word you’re looking for is not “contrast” but, probably “foil”. But, I’m only a knuckle-dragger so don’t worry about paying attention.
Yes, I did read the review, Nick. He writes very well. I’m just not always in agreement with what he writes.
Also, I’m in no sense name-calling. I don’t intend to call anyone a “knuckle-dragger” or the like. I just ask people to open up the dialogue and invite different viewpoints. There is usually more beneath the surface, and it’s not always anti-christian or immoral.
The word is contrast; although foil can also be used in a deeper sense. Foil gives a “maligned” intonation. Contrast is simply “opposite.” Thanks!
Clair – Yes, yes, begin your rant by calling us all backwoods Alabamians (I am, by the way, an Alabamian) and then command us to stop slinging mud and calling “judgements” [sic – I may be from Alabama, but I can spell]and just “leave that to the Man upstairs!” However, the last time I checked, the Man upstairs doesn’t write movie reviews.
And I love this tidbit, “Stop approaching everything from the religious bent.” You do realize that this is a Catholic blog, right?
There should never be dialogue with immorality or error. It is to be condemned, and that is that.
Dialogue is one word you will not find in the Bible. Along with tolerance,there is nothing Christian about dialogue.
Jesus was not one to dialogue. He chose his words carefully and measured them out carefully.
Repent was a keyword in the ministry of Jesus.
and hell was mentioned 73 times in the Gospels.
How many sermons has the average Catholic heard on that topic?
Clair, you seem to be suggesting that we be open to the possibility that evil is good. That’s about what the serpent said to Eve.
“Stop approaching everything from the religious bent.”
So, please allow me to get this straight.
We’re not supposed to be in the world but not of the world? I thought we, as Christians, are to do our best to view the world around us from the point of view of our faith. Am I wrong here?
What you seem to be saying here, Clair, is telling us that it’s OK to see the gay cowboy movie & check our Catholicism at the door. Yes?
And, here I thought the cafeteria was closed!
As for this comment:
“One last note: Yes, the hetero types in the film are set up to be unsympathetic…it’s called “contrast”…a needed element in good Drama.”
Well, no. What is needed in good drama is . . . conflict. One may set up that confilct by making all characters of a specific type – in Brokeback Mountain‘s case, heterosexuals – unsympathetic. But that, frankly, is just poor storytelling. Real people are not like that. Steven pointed that out in his review when he compmared BM (quite an apt set of initials, that) to Dead Man Walking. I think the same comparision would hold up for Ang Lee’s The Ice Story, as well. A writer or filmmaker need not demonize or sterotype those with an opposing view in order to make a point more effective. In fact, such treatment will serve to weaken the point. Ang Lee got it right in The Ice Storm, so we know he knows how to do it.
Makes me wonder why he made the choice not to for BM.
Un-Clair, Can you read? You mention Bible-verse slinging but this post in particular is relatively Scripture-free. You also mention “pontificating” like it was a bad thing. We’re Catholic. Habemus papam! And we love him! (Okay, no more troll-feeding)
I notice two issues while reading over these posts. One is that Hollywood stinks and sinks bad. The other is a complaint by a group of people who insist you only have a right to criticize a movie once you have seen it.
Has anyone thought the reason Hollywood can continually crank out such low-quality films with impunity is because we are constantly told we have to BUY the right to criticize bad films?
But as long as Hollywood gets money, they will not be compelled to change.
But we have no grounds for making criticisms unless we pay money for bad movies.
Anybody notice the circular logic here?
On another note, I recently started purchasing films that are unabashedly Catholic as a way of edifying my faith and, you know what? They are really good! LOTR goes without saying but there are other gems out there like A Man for All Seasons and The Scarlet and The Black (although Pope Pius XII was portrayed a little too mealy).
It is quite refreshing to able to sit through a movie and not be assaulted with the bigoted, uninformed jabs against Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general and just enjoy a good story for what it is.
“all this obsessive religious pontificating”, “trying to out-do one another with your break-neck bible verses”, “Stop approaching everything from the religious bent”, “You need to remember that you are lowly mortals”. Clair: Stop the judgment calling!
We rent movies from http://www.cleanfilms.com. It is a nice service for $20 a month. They edit films for family viewing. Here is their description of their editing from the website.
What is a Family Edited movie?
Family Edited movies are movies that have been edited for content to remove nudity and sexual situations, offensive language, and graphic violence.
My wife and I have really been happy with the service and recommend it to anyone who wants to be able to watch a movie without exposing their family to offensive material.
The best part is the kids learn that a movie can be enjoyable without any of the gratuitous situations, graphic violence or offensive language.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
I find the calls from the left for “dialogue” to be nothing but blowing smoke.
Clair, do you suggest we maintain an open dialogue about racism? Perhaps the KKK had some valid points that were missed? (I’m being facetious, here).
Maybe you would like to keep an open mind about child labor… let’s open our minds to the concerns of the industrialists.
There are different ways to have an open mind. One way is to be like a net, separating those things that are true from those that are not (1 John 4:1).
Then again, our minds can be open more like a sewer drain, letting in every kind of filth without discretion.
obsessive bible verse pontificating. where is that ?
Perhaps you need to approach all this obsessive reglious pontificating from the “internal” thought process of the people involved; ruminate on the truth, whether it be destructive (sin) or constructive(rejecting sin), of anyone here.
“He thus was able to separate the artistic craftsmanship of the film from its moral content, which is a very important distinction to make.”
If Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are convertible terms, is it possible to describe something as being both morally evil and beautiful?
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
The critique against masculinity made by the movie ties in with the critique against the heroic.
I think this may stem from a Secularist misunderstanding of the Great Paschal Sacrifice. Many Liberal Secularists think of Christ’s death as merely a pitiful and unwarranted disaster and that the goal of Christians in venerating this sacrifice (and the other martyrs) over the centuries was a grass-roots effort to gain more and more sympathy until a majority of sympathizers is created which sort of steam rolled over every one else who disagreed. (Which is exactly what the “gay rights” movement is doing all over the formerly Christian nations right now).
This is a misunderstanding of Christianity and hence, a misreading of reality.
The reason we love Christ’s sacrifice so much is not because we feel sorry for Him (though we do feel both guilt at its necessity and sorrow for its brutality) but because He is our hero. He saved us. The true definition of hero is one who is willing give all of himself for what is right even in the face of doubt, fear, or death.
A hero is NOT someone who, by a sympathetic mandate of the majority, is vindicated in taking whatever action necessary to level the playing field in his favor.
But the essence of many “heroes” in modern media reflect more of the latter than the former. This is because the former is based on an understanding of Objective Truth, while the latter is relativistic and therefore finds its strength not in reason or morality but in the brute force of majority rule.
We can see this type of thinking typified in the exhortations of the trolls visiting this Catholic blog just for Brokeback. They childishly jeer us for being different. They want us to join a “dialogue” in order to obliterate what makes us unique and incorporate us into the majority collective. They are trying to build that steam roller to take out the weak and different.
Secularists hate sacrifice. It is the essence of the unappealing quality of them that gives their agenda strength.
The characters in Brokeback seem to exemplify this style of thinking. They are more resentful for having been “forced” by society to marry women and resentful of society for killing other homosexuals out of irrational hate. Blaming the other for the actions one takes is demonstrably unmanly and unheroic.
Note that the focus is not on their moral high-ground but on how pitiful they are. They are put-upon by external forces.
But in the Christian mind, sacrifice is beautiful because it is both an expression of love and a heroic deed. We do not selflessly give ourselves to Good simply because Good demands sacrifice but because Good is the only thing WORTHY of our sacrifice. We sacrifice ourselves not to gain pity, but because it is right and heroic to do so.
This is why the message of the gay culture is so circumstantial. Look at the way they overplay the martyr of Matthew Sheppard. The expectation is that if they can manipulate you into feeling genuine sorrow for his tragic death (which I do), then you will automatically convert to their cause and fight Catholicism (which I don’t).
When this fails, the name-calling starts because, in their minds, you have somehow taken the side of the bigoted drug addicts that killed him. This is their black and white view of the world and it stems from their inability to comprehend sacrifice and the heroic.
But if their movement is based on the worldview of sacrifice being repugnant, then how successful will they be at holding society together once they (hypothetically) get rid of all of us who disagree with them? It seems to promise a world where there is no sacrifice is to make a statement that flies in the face of God Himself. (It is also reminiscent of the 20th century’s worst dictators)
By the way, I know I have said some things here that can be taken the wrong way. Instead of spending pages and pages trying to nuance my words, I have contented myself with the knowledge that a Catholic can read what I am saying and understand while the Secularist Leftist can read those same words and not know their meaning. This post is internal, and not for proselytizing to trolls.
That’s an excellent question, Fr. Neri. My answer is no — any work of art is an admixture of truth/beauty and falsehood/ugliness.
Many works of art are sufficiently dominated by one or the other of these qualities that we can conveniently characterize the work as a whole by this single quality: Thus A Man for All Seasons is dominantly true/beautiful, while a porn film is dominantly false/ugly.
However, in some works truth/beauty and falsehood/ugliness each exist in significant measure. Sometimes these works are flawed but still worthwhile (movies I would put in this category include My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Pieces of April); others are intriguing but fundamentally flawed (here I might list Kingdom of Heaven or Mumford).
Brokeback Mountain is not without truth/beauty. At times it is even movingly or strikingly true/beautiful, and as a critic it’s my job to acknowledge that. If I don’t — if I focus solely on what is objectionable — then I am not giving the reader an adequate portrait of the film. My job in this case is to say why, in spite of what it gets or does right, the film is still ultimately fundamentally poisoned.
The same goes for The Magdalene Sisters. Had that film been only a bit different — had it made the nuns even somewhat complex, nuanced human beings, but still abusive and cruel — I would have recommended the film instead of dis-recommending it.
Touché, Father! But we have to admit that a thing can posess elements of beauty or truth, and still be ugly or false as a whole.
If a work of art is evil as a whole, then whatever aspects of beauty or truth it posesses are spoiled and end up as simply a tragic waste.
I recall that Satan often mixed truth with his lies when he tempted our Lord. We should expect that he will mix beauty with ugliness when it suits his purpose.
P.S. to Fr. Neri: Having said that, there is also this to be said. An orator who speaks with great rhetorical skill and panache deserves to be credited for his style and ability even if the content of what he says is pernicious and false. What you say is one thing; how you say it is something else.
Likewise, excellence in characterization, dialogue, directing, acting, cinematography, and so forth needs to be recognized, even if the meaning of the film is pernicious and false. Indeed, in order to condemn the falsity of the meaning most effectively, we need to distinguish the artistic merits most clearly. Otherwise, in the first place, we will not know which false films are most likely to powerfully affect our neighbors and our culture, which are more deserving of our attention and careful refuting; and in the second place those who have appreciated a film’s artistic merits will not listen to us if we only condemn the film’s evils but seem blind to what they have understandably appreciated in it.
I never really understood the beauty standard invoked by mathematicians and scientists until I studied Catholic theology. For me, a great part of what brought me into the Church is her captivating beauty. I finally understood why so much art and culture is born of this historical movement between God and man.
I see the ultimate measure of beauty to be in its truth and the ultimate measure of truth in its beauty. The two cannot exist in their fullness unless they are both there exhibiting their full complimentariality. For whatever amount of beauty may be in a story like Brokeback, it is so much more the pity for the lack of truth it portrays.
The Church recognizes that she does not have the copyright on truth. A pagan can come to truth as well — but will be denied the fullness of it until he comes home to the Catholic Church. The same can be said of beauty.
This is how God entices his favored creations into the Mystical Body of Christ — all are allowed to experience some measure of truth and beauty so they may seek their source.
In this we see an example of the universal orientation of humankind towards truth, beauty, and goodness and their ultimate source which is God.
I suppose if there is a positive message to be taken from the disunity of truth and beauty in Brokeback, it is that it proves God has built into us an innate longing for Him. But at the same time, I pray for the immortal souls of the movie’s makers for encouraging those it would presume to serve to stand Goodness on its head and lead each other by the hand to the gates of Hell (I say this knowing full well I may end up beating them there).
“Dialogue is one word you will not find in the Bible. Along with tolerance, there is nothing Christian about dialogue.”
The entire Bible IS dialogue. God is engaging in dialogue (and much more) with nasty little beings who have been corrupted by evil. Evil is to be condemned, but not beings corrupted by evil.
Thanks be to God for His dialogue.
Dialogue, in the religious sense as understood today, is for those of different beliefs to come together and discuss their differences and work around what separates them.
The Catholic Church has never, ( until 1965)
promoted this approach.
The Catholic Church, given the Spirit of Truth on Pentecost, is in no need of dialoging with those in error.
The purpose of the Church is to teach the truth to others, and condemn error. To Define matters of Doctrine as needed and promote faithfulness to the Gospel truths.
the concept of interfaith meetings and dialogue is foreign to the mission of the church.
Some claim it will bring those of other traditions closer to the church.
Well, the statistics prove the opposite.
Conversions of protestants, and Jews to Catholicism has fallen off a cliff since 1952.
Do parents dialogue with their children when they disobey ?
When children are failing in their school subjects or have engaged in some immoral activity, do we sit down and dialogue with them. Tell them how wonderful they are and how seeds of truth are found in smoking pot or ignoring the teachers assignments ?
No. And parents of children who are role-model Catholic children are always quick to discipline the child who exhibits bad behavior.
Of course this is usually not needed since those families who practice Catholic devotions like the family Rosary and weekly vespers, rarely if ever have problems with their children.
And I speak from experience.
To this poster, who is upset:
“You guys are only happy with gay people when they are tied up and murdered like Matthew Shephard. Then you march over to his funeral and chant “God hates Fags”.
But God forbid they make a movie about the struggle that gay people go through – yup – you try to censor that.
But when fags are murdered – that is gods will.
You guys are majorly XXXXXX up.”
This poster is wrong on a key fact. Matthew Sheppard’s killers were never charged with a hate crime. Despite hate laws beig onthe book,s they were charged with robbery and murder.
Sheppards killers were seeking money to buy drugs, and may have been on drugs at the time.
I fully agree the tactics of “pastor” fred phelps and his entourage of 160 family members
taunting people at funerals is a disgrace.
Thank you, CD. Very well put! But, give it up, man! You’re dealing with minds too tightly closed to reality. They are not happy unless they’re castigating some sect of society.
Steven,
Did you see Ang Lee’s The Ice Storm? It also contained characters that violated Catholic moral teaching. But I didn’t get from that film that Lee was, as a director, endorsing the marital infidelity and teenage sexual experimentation contained in the story. Unless showing this behavior was itself an endorsement. But that seems not a sound principle of interpretation.
Is there anything internal to the film itself that mandates that we should interpret the characters’ behavior in an approving way? Why can’t I consider this film in the same way I consider The Ice Storm?
Another point:
We need to remember in our interpretation of the film that it came from a screenplay based upon a short story by Anne Proulx.
Did the screenwriters, or Lee, change the characters in a significant way, so that all of the male figures (other than the two) protagonists became unsympathetic? Or did he, and the screenwriters, hew faithfully to the Proulx story itself?
AnotherDavid,
To answer the easier question first: It makes no difference at all as regards the meaning of the film whether the prejudicial depiction of heterosexual masculinity is the result of the film being faithful to a prejudicial element in the source material or whether the filmmakers added it as a prejudicial element of their own. Whoever is responsible for the prejudicial element, the effect in the finished film is the same.
As regards the first question: Certainly, there is a difference between showing behavior in a film and endorsing it, and The Ice Storm is probably a good example of that. Does Brokeback “mandate” a sympathetic interpretation of the protagonists’ relationship? Of course not — art seldom “mandates” anything. But neither does the film simply present us with bare events that we are free to interpret however we feel like.
Both Brokeback and The Ice Storm are in their own ways critiques of society; and the social critique at work in Brokeback is directed at the social ideas of masculinity — ideas that are presented in a negative light — which are the reason Ennis and Jack’s relationship so taboo and dangerous, and thus are to blame for all the suffering in the film.
It is society’s attitudes — not the inherently disordered and gravely immoral nature of their relationship itself — with which the film finds fault. Until and insofar as the outside world intrudes, Ennis and Jack’s relationship itself is presented in idyllic terms, all pristine landscapes and serene guitar strumming. There is a purity, almost a kind of sacredness to their time together that is never seen in the world of society.
I’m not saying the movie doesn’t fault Jack and Ennis in any way. It does. Their own choices are sometimes bad and cause pain as well. But then their choices are conditioned by social expectations rooted in society’s inadequate ideas of what masculinity is.
Will the USCCB hire Steve Greydanus already. The USCCB critic who reviewed this movie, does not have a clue.
It would also be nice if my diocesan paper (The Catholic Sun – Phoenix) would carry the movie reviews of Steve Greydanus. The current movie critic (a priest, btw) gave a great review of Kinsey and slammed “The Passion.”
Thank you for all you do Steve, you are truly a talented movie critic (most intelligent reviews I’ve ever seen) and you are always spot on in regards to the morality of the movie.
Praise God!
As someone once said: Its not what you know , its who you know. Wink Wink
Thanks for the reply, Stephen.
The reason I asked about any differences between the short story and the screenplay/filmed version was that if Lee or the screenwriters changed the story so that all the male characters (other than the two protagonists) were unappealing, that would be evidence that Lee or the screenwriters had an “agenda” over and above the story itself.
I think this makes some difference as to whether or not we hold the director of the film to be culpable for whatever moral faults there are in his or her source material.
My sense is that Ang Lee isn’t the sort of director that presents each film of his as some sort of manifesto for liberal causes. He strikes me as less ideological than that.
David,
I understand what you’re saying… MY point is only that whether the person responsible for the problematic aspects of the film is Lee or Proulx is of no critical importance.
If the film is faithful, Proulx may be to blame; otherwise, Lee or his screenwriters may be to blame. It doesn’t really matter.
Film is a inherently collaborative medium in which many hands share the credit or the blame, and apportioning responsibility to this or that individual is beyond the proper scope of film criticism.
Ultimately, God will decide who if anyone is to be blamed for the film’s problematic aspects; my job as a critic is simply to illuminate the problems that exist. 🙂
Thanks for the additional reply, Stephen. Food for thought.
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Hello all. I have to comment on the Brokeback controversy.
The difficulty I have with the church is the obvious double standard in its “morality”. I can understand the desire to make declarations about the “wrongness” of Brokeback. But, if the church is supposed to be a moral compass, she needs to be consistent.
Are we to understand the the only sexual sin is homosexuality? Where are the outcries against the consistent flow of fornication and adultery from the sewer pipes of Hollywood? Are not adultery and fornication named as sinful practices in the scriptures?
The church must be offended with all sexual sin or none at all, if she wants to be relevant to the gay community. It is unfair to condemn one sin and wink at others. It smacks of hypocricy.
Those are my few words in Jesus’ name.
I was just doing a search for alabama to see where this movie is playing somehow I ran into someone saying something ABOUT Alabamaians, what’s with this stereotype? How can someone judge us?
The review observes that no sympathetic heterosexual males are depicted in Brokeback Mountain.
I think that keeps pretty well in keeping with having the protagonists’ viewpoint. There are no sympathetic heterosexual men in their lives, as there are none in the real world.
On a relevant religious note, the film was distinctive in its refusal to get sidetracked in skewering the Church. This pitfall has stymied real debate on the homosexual topic for decades.
The huge success of the movie is going to prove as problematic for fundamentalist Christianity as the success of Mormonism has.
Even a non-Darwinianist will have to honestly address what will remain of the status quo in 100 years time.
Jason,
You and I will have to honestly address how we responded to God’s grace for all time. With that thought we should seek the Truth and strive for holiness.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J