« Abouttimeyougothome Catblogging Twofer | Main | Post-Christmas Thawblogging »

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Ewwback Mountain

Gay sex icky!

Many thanks to film critic Michael Medved for his review of Hollywood's latest piece of social propaganda, "Brokeback Mountain." Medved has spared 98 percent of American males what he calls "the eww! factor" by warning us of its graphic scenes of homosexuality.

This "love story" is set in 1963 between two young, married sheepherders who seek regular fulfillment of their lust for each other by engaging in homosexual adultery while their unsuspecting wives sit home believing they are off together on "hunting trips."

Medved compares the film, which is skillfully directed by Ang Lee ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") to "Triumph of the Will," Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 documentary of Adolf Hitler: a brilliant, convincing bit of filmmaking, the sole purpose of which was to promote a political and/or social agenda.
...
Hollywood's obsession with deviant sex has become almost a cliché. Loving, monogamous sexual expression between a man a woman committed to each other and to their marriage vows has been relegated to its classic movie vaults. Today, human relationships rarely are explored onscreen sans freewheeling, irresponsible sex. Of course, any pain caused by such behavior is inevitably blamed on the repressive attitudes of a puritanical society that simply will not allow human beings the freedom to explore their true sexuality. "Brokeback Mountain" is no exception. The message is a ham-fisted attempt to persuade us that same-sex marriage would benefit us all. If only society would allow these two frustrated lovers to marry each other, the message goes, then everyone would live happily ever after. Yeah, right. Tell that to their humiliated wives.

Yes, showing two guys ride the mechanical bull together is just like glorifying a psychopathic dictator responsible for the murder of tens of millions of people, including homosexuals.  And dude, you're so right that if we let the faggy fags from Queerville marry each other, their wives will be totally humiliated because, uh...they'll never marry their wives, who will project forward to a time that they might have been married and got dumped and...did I mention that gay sex is icky?

Speaking of which, here's what Michael Medved, Patron Saint of Wholesome Movies With Absolutely No Christian Agenda, said:

This is going to be a very tough movie to sell because the main audience for cowboy movies is supposed to be guys but for most American guys who are not gay, there's a yewwwww factor to the idea of Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger getting too up close and personal on screen.

Yeah, okay:

Who's afraid of a couple of gay cowboys? Not moviegoers, who helped "Brokeback Mountain" post the highest per-screen average over the film-flush holiday weekend.

The Ang Lee film, which follows the 20-year forbidden romance between two roughneck ranch hands, earned $13,599 per theater, compared with $9,305 for weekend winner "King Kong" and $8,225 for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

The big question is whether "Brokeback" can maintain its momentum as it moves from selected cities, where audiences are receptive to the subject matter, to suburbs far and wide, where that might not be the case.

Early numbers — and early awards buzz — establish the picture's staying power, industry insiders say. "Brokeback" earned a leading seven Golden Globe nominations.

I personally am going to avoid seeing the movie myself, just in case: I don't want to turn into a cowboy or anything.

ntodd

December 29, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8349d703f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ewwback Mountain:

Comments

You don't happen to know if Brokeback is coming to St. J, preferably Catamount, do you? I just want to know so that I can watch it, but also to stand guard, should you be tempted by the siren song of homosexuality and attempt to go see it yourself.

Posted by: mg | Dec 29, 2005 10:32:05 AM

graphic scenes of homosexuality?!?

did that guy even see the movie? how can he call it "graphic." for a movie about a love affair between a pair of gay men, it was remarkable how there was more female nudity than male nudity in the film. sure, it was pretty open about what was going on, but i would not call it "graphic" at all.

Posted by: upyernoz | Dec 29, 2005 11:54:21 AM

Ha ha ha! He said "ham fisted"!

Posted by: lea-p | Dec 29, 2005 12:03:25 PM

They are sheepherders, not cowboys. This is the kind of thing that has long been suspected of sheepherders, so this is confirmation of conventional wisdom.

If you spend your days with sheep, like at the Republican convention, this is what happens to you.

John Wayne's downfall is linked to the scene in Big Jake when he saved a sheepherder from the righteous lynching by cowboys. That's when he displayed his dark side.

Posted by: Bryan | Dec 29, 2005 12:53:23 PM

Boy, they really can't deal with anything that doesn't cater to the straight male gaze, can they? I wonder how many straight women are going to take in this movie. There's a sizeable guy-on-guy appreciation gaze among many straight gals.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs | Dec 29, 2005 1:30:20 PM

I haven't seen it, but from what I understand, it is thematically similar to Gay Boys In Bondage, Directed by Dennis Moore, with the screenplay by E. Henry Thripshaw.

Posted by: MarkS | Dec 29, 2005 5:34:09 PM

Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger having sex? Now that's a movie I'd pay money to see. Not that Hollywood is likely to put it on the market any time soon...

Posted by: Michael | Dec 29, 2005 8:18:22 PM

I'm going to just buy it when Hollywood Video puts it into the pre-viewed for sale stack. I only go to the theater for the special special stuff: Harry Potter, LotR, Michael Moore....

Posted by: ellroon | Dec 29, 2005 10:47:37 PM

Yeah, I figure it'll turn up on one of my movie channels in a year or so. I hardly ever go to the theaters anymore. Last movie I saw in theatrical release was Miracle.

Posted by: Michael | Dec 30, 2005 12:06:06 AM

while their unsuspecting wives sit home believing they are off together on "hunting trips."

They were on fishing trips, ferchissakes!!!


He really didn't see the movie, did he?

Posted by: flory | Dec 30, 2005 1:54:05 AM

Methinks Mr. Medved has issues, and I'm willing to bet that if he got a couple of beers under his belt and Heath Ledger sauntered over to him and fancied his belt buckle we'd be talking about a whole new paradigm here.

Okay, I just completely killed my libido for the next week.

Posted by: Mustang Bobby | Dec 30, 2005 9:51:27 AM

Sheepherders, cowboys...what's the difference? I don't want to turn into either of them, so I'm still going to avoid the movie at all costs.

BTW, if one were to "convert" a non-sheepherder/cowboy, does one get a toaster? Or maybe some branding irons?

Posted by: NTodd | Dec 30, 2005 11:58:18 AM

"Hollywood's obsession with deviant sex has become almost a cliché. Loving, monogamous sexual expression between a man a woman committed to each other and to their marriage vows has been relegated to its classic movie vaults."
Yeah, that's because its boring! People go to the movies (read books, see plays) to be challenged and entertained. Why should I pay $10 to watch some moralistic crap?
These rethugs are good capitalists when it suits their needs. Hypocrites all.

Posted by: Karla Marx | Dec 30, 2005 3:25:31 PM

Karla:

I actually thought "The Notebook" was a good movie . . .

Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 3:33:26 PM

Soldiers fought and died for the freedom
of boys to 'horse around'. 'Boys will
be boys' and skinny dipp in the sun and jerk off in the tent if they arent threatened with
tire iron bludgeoning by psychotic 'normal' people and puritans who need mommies permission to enjoy their nuts.

Posted by: healthyFun | Dec 30, 2005 10:18:45 PM

Um, I got the whole loving, monogamous, het relationship thing going on at home. What I don't have is Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal making out in my livingroom. Or being tortured by the fact that they can't have the relationship they want to have. I also don't have dragons, volcanoes, dancing penguins or jousters in my livingroom (and, really, having had jousters in my livingroom, I'm okay with that last part...) so do the fundies suggest that I only watch my own life instead of any movie at all? How very odd. I am regularly amused by my own life, but sometimes a person needs literature, drama, and art not of their own making.

Posted by: Reba | Dec 31, 2005 9:39:04 PM

Medved's a prick. He's an unqualified movie
critic whose main draw--only draw, really--is
his prudish contrarianism. Now he's become a
social commentator whose main draw--only draw,
really--is his prudish contrarianism. In
neither capacity has he demonstrated any skill
at observing or describing much of anything.
His specialty is bemoaning the loss of an era
that never really existed. Prick.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 1, 2006 10:16:26 AM

Post a comment