Many
film historians have suggested that it will take decades before the
true impact of Brokeback Mountain upon society can be analyzed and put
into its proper context. 2005’s Brokeback Mountain was nominated for eight Academy Awards, the most nominations given out at the 78th Academy Awards. The movie eventually won three categories: Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score. In
addition, Brokeback Mountain was honored with Best Picture and Best
Director awards by the British Academy of Film and Television, four
Golden Globes, and many others accolades. But perhaps its
lasting achievement will not be remembered by the awards that it
received but rather in how this movie helped to accelerate changes in
mainstream society’s attitudes towards the “unseen” gay population
living all around them; changes that would eventually include open
acceptance into the military and laws to legally marry in several
states.
Without
pandering to tired old stereotypes, Brokeback Mountain depicts the
complex and deep love between two masculine cowboys over the course of
their lives. It’s set in the American West between 1963 and 1983. What
makes the movie truly unique is that the story is not about gay men
fighting against specific discrimination or wrongful acts that have
happened against them, as other gay-related movie themes have often
portrayed. This is a personal love story. And
it’s a tragic love story, because we the audience witness firsthand how
they have been conditioned by society, beginning as little boys, to
treat their love as something shameful that is to be hidden. We see that these two men were not out protesting to change the world. They were not in court trying to avenge wrongful actions from employers. These
two quiet-living people were trying to do what a homophobic society
demanded of them in order to fit in: pretend that their love didn’t
exist, and the high cost this lie demanded upon many lives. To drive home the point, the audience learns that
one of them never forgot childhood memories of a man who was murdered
because he was gay and his recollections of the lack of sympathy about
this man’s violent death. Secretly (and not so secretly to those closest to them) they suffered all of their lives.
Whether
intentional or not, the film does not demand that the two leading men
self-define their relationship (or their sexuality) so that the audience
can then comfortably detach in order to judge them. As British reviewer Matthew E. Crossnaught pondered in
relation to the movie’s two masculine characters and their complicated
relationship: “How many married men, like me, have had at least one time [with
another man], or have known or suspected such secrets about those that we love?” Once
the film began to become popular with audiences and more theatres began
to show it, the conservative right began turning up their assault on
the movie in an attempt to discourage its acceptance and sympathetic
storyline.

Click here to Reply or Forward
|




2 comments:
As much as I applaud the film's impact, I must say I did not care for the film. It was directed with a very heavy hand, underlining symbolism that really should have been left to our subconscious minds. Brilliant performances by all the actors and the original source material is simply superb. Read the short story. - Uptonking from Wonderland Burlesque
Thank you for your insights.
Post a Comment