am i the only gay guy who dont like brokeback mountain?

i dont like it either

 

I don't really care for it, but I'm not against it.

 

Maybe if you watched it you could judge it better? :icon_wink

 

I didn't like the movie.

Mainly because it was the first widely accepted gay movie and with it came negative stereotypes...

1) Tragic ending. Not all gay relationships end in heartbreak.
2) Savage sex. WTF was with that? That was rape, not love making.
3) Infidelity. (I'm terrible with names, bear with me) One of them cheated on wife, the other cheated on the other with a mexican prostitute. Gays can be in a monogamous relationship.
4) Commitment. It really didn't seem like they were in love, more of just a relief of sexual frustration that has been pent up.

Although, I did enjoy the fact that it helped to tear down some social stigma in that a gay movie could be a success. Hopefully this encourages future film makers to make a gay oriented film that can do our community justice.

piyahhhh

 

Lol thats so funny because I always thought I was probably the only person here that didnt like the movie. Idk though, I actually did not like it much at all. Thought it was sort of boring and stuff. I was actually suprised it won an academy award.

 

The director, Ang Lee, said that he didn't want the film to be judged as a gay film, but as a general romance. And I totally get the message behind that, saying that gays are just like everyone else and shouldn't be judged differently, but I can't really get past the fact that it's a gay film, so I can't judge it as a general romance or anything.

And I agree with the person above me... the sex scene was a little rape-esque. I mean... it was hot. But yeah. xD

 

I wasn't as blown away by it as most people but I did like it.

Just some comments:

To be honest I don't remember the specifics except for thinking it was incredibly GRAPHIC for a film aimed at a mainstream straight audience but I have absolutely NO recollection of thinking it was non-consensual. Just because sex is rough does not mean it's rape. In fact some people (gay and straight and inbetween) prefer their sex rough. This notion that "meaningful" "good" sex involves candles and romantic music with your life-long partner and any other form of sex is dirty and shameful is a stereotype in itself, and a really harmful, judgmental, and very sex-negative, Victorian, and fundamentalist Christian one.

Yes but if you look at the period and locale of the story, it fit. Plus the way I interpreted it was that emotionally, they were very much only in love with one another. Or at least that their love for each other surpassed what other love they had in their lives.

It didn't seem like they were in love?! Did you watch the same movie as me? The whole movie was a Merchant Ivory-like tale of repressed longing and desire that lasted over 20 years... if it had just been about pent-up sexual frustration, they would have found alternate outlets over the course of their lives.

The whole end of the movie when Ennis (Heath Ledger) is on the phone to Jack's (Jake Gyllenhaal) wife would have been completely meaningless if Ennis hadn't been madly in love with Jack. The whole way the story was structured and the course of the events wouldn't have made any sense otherwise. If someone is just a sexual outlet to you, you don't really get torn up like Ennis did when he found out Jack was dead. And you don't bother keeping in touch with someone who was just a fuck from 20 years ago.

 

I agree that it was consensual, but I felt that it was far too graphic and rough. Rape was a bit strong of a word, but I felt that the sex was a little too much. It made me uncomfortable, I can only imagine how it made an "open-minded" straight person feel.

That explains the straight cheating. But what about Jack(I think?) going to get a prostitute?

I can agree that they were in love at the end, but when they first started to go at it is what I was referring to. I should've been more clear.

 

I liked it.
Joey already posted what was on my mind

 

But... movies aren't meant to always make people feel comfortable. Gay movies should not be all about making straight people find us palatable.

Was it graphic? Yes. Was that true to the story and the characters? I think if you sat back and thought about the circumstances and the times, the answer would be yes. We shouldn't have to tone down homosexual sex anymore than heterosexuals tone down their sex (and I've seen some pretty graphic/rough hetero sex on screen in "mainstream" movies) just because the people having sex are two guys. Or two women.

The question should be "was it gratuitous?" Now that's a judgment call I'll agree but it shouldn't be a judgment call, to me, where the criteria includes "how might this make straight people uncomfortable?"

Well my explanation would be he was trying to get on with his life and move on because (if I recall correctly) Ennis had said things were finished. I'm sure he might have preferred to have a steady boyfriend but again, it wasn't like he was an openly gay guy in a major city.

Oh wait... you mean Jack cheating on his wife with a hustler as opposed to with the great love of his life? I probably misinterpreted your question; sorry. Well yes, cheating is not a good thing, granted, but again, it's completely true to the character's situation. I think some members here can talk about how they had sex with guys (not necessarily hustlers) while involved with women. It might not be a very flattering part of gay life to draw attention to but it's certainly a very true/real part to portray. Being closeted drives people to a lot of really unpleasant places.

Ah okay... well no doubt it was somewhat more physically-based early on, as many relationships are initially. But I don't think that feeds a gay stereotype because I suspect many great romances, gay or straight, have begun as more visceral affairs.

The thing with worrying about feeding stereotypes of gay people is that there are always going to be people who see everything in terms of stereotypes being confirmed and reinforced and you will simply never convince them that gay people or black people or immigrants or Jewish people or any other member of an identifiable oppressed group is anything but a caricature of a person. It's like a puppy who keeps trying to please a sadistic owner who is constantly kicking him: it's a pointless waste of energy that only demeans the people seeking approval. The best way to shatter stereotypes is to live open and authentic lives--and tell the stories of those lives. Sometimes those lives and stories will happen to reflect this or that stereotypical aspect of gay life but trying to contort the narrative to avoid any possible foray into potentially stereotyped territory would be the real travesty.

 

well if ur the only gay that dont like it im prob the only gay that wasnt seen it yet
tho from what i have heard about it it sounds like a good movie.

 

It was alright. Like, I'm glad it didn't win the Oscar for Best Movie, however when I watched it, I didn't wanna fast forward any parts of it. That's my usual test for how good a movie is: quality is inversely proportional to time spent fast forwarding...According to this scale, Freddy vs Jason is the worst movie I've ever scene....Eurgh, that movie was so horrible.

Back to the topic. I personally though that Jake Gyllenhall did a better acting job than Heath, though Heath did awesome. Perhaps I think this way cos I have a massive crush on Jake hehe