It’s The Emotional Honesty of the Story Overall (of 2 gay cowboys) That Seems Paramount.
Below, I’ve listed some of the highlights of the USCCB movie review of the homosexual propaganda movie Brokeback Mountain.
“As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual
orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship
is morally problematic.” but…“It treats the subject matter … with
discretion.”
Now that we have the gratuitous statement of Church teaching over with, along with the reassurance that you won’t see “too much” homosexual
“action”, lets move on to better things. The theme of riding that thin line between Church teachings and outright endorsing the film repeats itself throughout the review.
“Director Ang Lee’s well-crafted film, which is superbly acted, was adapted from a New Yorker short story by Pulitzer Prize-winner Annie Proulx.
While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.
While it is the story of an intimate relationship, more to the point it’s the relationship of two emotionally scarred souls.
Ennis resolutely insists he’ll sleep outdoors, but the cold drives him into Jack’s tent, where the two awkwardly, then roughly, have sex. Incidentally, that scene — short and with the men mostly clothed – is the only onscreen gay sexual encounter in the film.
The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic.
Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.
It’s the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship — which, by the way, ends in tragedy — that seems paramount.
Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience. “
I am really surprised the anonymous reviewer did not give this an adult and adolescent rating, instead, he gave it the rating of “troubling some adults”. Maybe the rating that “require(s) caution and some analysis and explanation as a safeguard against wrong interpretations and false conclusions” would hit too close to home for the reviewer. But heck, I guess that wouldn’t be emotional honesty, would it.
.jpg)
Home on Derange
… would be a better title for the new cowboy movie. There has been much talk on the film review…
Trackback by The Curt Jester — December 15, 2005 @ 9:40 PM
That was actually my second choice, kind of.
Comment by shelray — December 15, 2005 @ 9:58 PM
And a byline? “Lust is a force of (fallen) nature.”
Comment by Clayton — December 15, 2005 @ 11:41 PM
Certainly gives a whole new meaning to the term “Howdy partner”.
But to be serious, I think we’re all pretty tired of these reviews lauding films that are “brutally honest” etc. And it particularly irks me when there is this perfunctory sop to the “Catholic” sensibilities of those who actually try to put into practice what the Church established by Christ teaches – they might as well say “some viewers may find that the film’s values conflicts with THEIR understanding of Church teachings, but what the heck, there were some great sex scenes, and the sexual banter was just soooo, you know, honest and emotion-charged. It was a hoot!”
When the Passion of the Christ came out, the Australian Catholic Film Office (which is part of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference) put out two reviews – both slamming the film. The review by the Director of the office, Fr Richard Leonard SJ, was the worst.
Recently they had warm words to say about Kinsey, and I just checked their website and found this beauty by Fr Leonard in his review of the film Shopgirl starring Steve Martin:
“There is some nudity, language and a few sex scenes that will offend some viewers. But if they don’t overly concern you, this thoughtful film is bargain entertainment.”
http://www.catholic.org.au/filmreviews/viewreview.asp?fid=609
Well, what can I say?
Comment by Venerable Aussie — December 16, 2005 @ 6:05 AM
Hi shelray,
We’ve certainly come a long way since Pope Pius XI and his 1936 encyclical Vigilanti Cura where he endorsed the (Catholic) American Legion of Decency who condemned
“Gone With The Wind” in 1940 primarily because it undermined the sanctity of marriage.
http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol2No1/tv_christ.html
Comment by Eric — December 16, 2005 @ 9:20 AM
[...] A ratings change for Brokeback Mountain (That title really bugs me for some reason). [...]
Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » A Morality Shift — December 16, 2005 @ 6:00 PM
Thanks for the link Eric, it’s now a bookmark.
Comment by shelray — December 17, 2005 @ 11:52 PM
Since when is “emotional honesty” all that matters? These film is morally offensive and therefore should have no redeaming qualities. Period. Why does The USCCB persist in this mealy mouthed leadership…is it just impossible for them to be definite about anything? *Sigh* No wonder the faithful are so confused in the USA.
Comment by CPT Tom — December 19, 2005 @ 4:48 PM
If the faithful really feel confused and threatened by the sight of a couple of guys making out with each other how can they possibly hope to cope with sickness, hunger, betrayal, loneliness, devastation, poverty, pain and all those other little surprises life has to offer. I didn’t realise it was ‘On this quivering pudding I will build My Church’. Christians. They really don’t make them like they used to. And anyway, who are you to snigger about gay cowboys. Last time I looked there was this large German man prancing around Rome in a white dress swinging a smoking handbag…
Comment by Gerard Kelly — January 18, 2006 @ 9:27 AM
Gerard,
I don’t think there is any feelings of confusion or being threatened by this movie. The primary point of the post was to point out that, “The theme of riding that thin line between Church teachings and outright endorsing the film repeats itself throughout the review”. The point of the USCCB movie reviews is to give the Catholic perspective of the movie’S content.
“how can they possibly hope to cope with sickness, hunger, betrayal, loneliness, devastation, poverty, pain and all those other little surprises life has to offer“, I’m not sure you meant to describe same-sex attraction as an affliction (which it is) but it brings up a good point. How would you feel about a movie that celebrated the suffering caused by sickness, Hunger, betrayal, loneliness, devastation, poverty and pain? It would be offensive, wouldn’t it? What if the point of the movie was to legitimize these afflictions? The pain and confusion brought on by the attraction of these two men are real and as human beings, they are to be treated with respect and compassion. They are people who suffer from the inner conflict of their profound, (adulterous) sexual attraction. Is it o.k. to do what ever we want, when we want, because we have feelings? Does anyone even care about the other victim in the marriage? There is a big difference between confused lust and permissiveness vs. sincere love for another human being.
I don’t think anyone has any hostility against cowboys. By the way, is what do you have against prancing?
I appreciate you expressing your point of view, Thanks.
Comment by shelray — January 18, 2006 @ 5:12 PM
Shelray,
Thanks for responding. Easiest part first – I have no objection to prancing. People should prance more often. It’s a much more interesting way of getting from A to B than merely walking.
“How would you feel about a movie that celebrated the suffering caused by sickness, Hunger, betrayal, loneliness, devastation, poverty and pain?” I wouldn’t condone any movie that ‘celebrated’ suffering for its own sake. But I do applaud movies that try to explore why people suffer. And in this case, the two protagonists are crucified not only by bigotry but also, and more importantly, by the cowardice of Ennis to accept who he is.
This, I think, is why Catholics and other conservative Christians have such a problem with Brokeback. The character of Ennis does precisely what the church recommends people in his situation should do – deny it. His life is not undone because of a couple of fumbles twice a year up a mountain with another man. Heck – the church has always been able to provide an answer to that – a few Our Fathers, a couple of Hail Marys and out the confessional you go until the next time.
Ennis’ tragedy, which he ultimately realises, is that he was only ever going to be happy with Jack but he was too scared to do anything about it. And the misery he caused his wife and kids – which I agree should not be ignored – was never going to be alleviated by denying it.
So when you say “Is it o.k. to do what ever we want, when we want, because we have feelings?”. Put like that, no. There are too many exceptions to the rule. But I do believe that if you can’t be true to yourself, you’re unlikely to be true to anybody else either…
Comment by Gerard Kelly — January 19, 2006 @ 12:50 PM
Gerard,
How do we define who or what we are? By the way, I tried it and I liked it.
the prancer.
Comment by shelray — January 19, 2006 @ 8:46 PM
Shelray,
I generally give credit to people for knowing who or what they are. It’s more reliable than relying on anyone else – bishops, parents, wives, husbands, politicians or Oprah. But for most people, it isn’t obvious and usually takes a lifetime – and I’m not just talking about sex. That’s the least of it
Comment by Gerard Kelly — January 20, 2006 @ 11:15 AM
Gerard,
I guess my point is that we are shaped by our genetics, environment, culture, events, etc…
We are all unique in that there is not two people who have the exact “formula” for who they become or who they think they are. Unfortunatly, bad things sometimes happen to good people, and that can significantly impact individual perceptions of themselves, others and life in general (child abuse victims, victims of rape, severe poverty, violent environment, etc..). We always have to be conscious of that, in that many times, the person becomes a product of the above mentioned variables, not by choice. That’s why we always have to respect everyone with the dignighty they deserve. That being said, people are who they are, not what they do.
Comment by shelray — January 20, 2006 @ 1:27 PM