Classical Values :: Politicizing self hatred?

December 23, 2005

Politicizing self hatred?

Reflecting on the "all-gays-must-see-this" hype surrounding the release of "Brokeback Mountain," Sean Kinsell demonstrates why he's one of the most honest voices in the blogosphere:

...those of us who don't see our story in it have to be allowed to appreciate it on our own terms and to our own degree, and that's where I find the implication that it's our homosexual duty to rally around Brokeback Mountain, the pop culture phenomenon, annoying. Gays deserve as much liberty to decide whom to identify with as anyone else does. Sometimes we'll sympathize with people without necessarily seeing them as reflections of ourselves, even if gay advocates deem it politically expedient to do so. We have to be as free to choose for ourselves as we are to speak for ourselves.

If only a time would come when it wouldn't require the courage that Sean displays to say what really amounts to common sense. A lot of gay men would agree with Sean, but they don't feel free to say so. This is a movie, for God's sake. If you can't identify with two cowboys falling in love (of if that just doesn't fulfill your romantic ideal) that should not mean you hate yourself or that there's something wrong with your view of the world. To analogize to a heterosexual setting, how many love stories have been put on film with which all heterosexuals can identify? I've seen a lot of shlocky love films, and some that are considered timeless classics, but that doesn't mean I've been able to identify with them.

A good example is "Gone With The Wind" -- a great film, but I just couldn't relate to either Rhett Butler or Scarlet O'Hara as especially worthy of love, so I had little empathy with either side of this dysfunctional relationship. Had the same relationship been homosexual in nature, I'd have thought it equally irritating. These things are personal, and I can think of few things more distasteful than the idea of culturally dictated tastes. Popular culture is often held hostage by lowest common denominator thinking, and I don't see why I should apply a separate standard to a film because Hollywood has bent over backwards to smash some all-American stereotype about cowboys. I mean, wasn't it Hollywood which gave us the cowboy stereotype in the first place? Might this film reflect some need to demonstrate that Hollywood has the right create and destroy these stereotypes at will? Is it reasonable to ask whether "Brokeback Mountain" might be seen as an exercise in raw power? Sometimes I find the whole stereotype smashing thing as tedious as the underlying stereotypes being smashed. Is that allowed?

I haven't seen the film, but Sean's hoping that it might be like Romeo and Juliet:

Personally, my highest hope for Brokeback Mountain is that it's kind of like Romeo and Juliet, making a generalizable point about the raw resilience of love in the face of social pressure by taking the circumstances to an unusual extreme. Given the frantic "It's not a gay movie!" PR fusillade, that appears to be the way its makers are also hoping it will be regarded. But that may not make it a metaphor for gay life in any kind of direct and overarching way.

While forbidden or impossible love is kind of cool, I could relate more to a gay "Palestinian guerilla falls in love with Israeli soldier" meme (or perhaps "1960s IRA Provo falls in love with Ulster Orange Order Man") than cowboys. This may or may not be a good film, but I'm not especially captivated by the cowboys as an inherently forbidden class.

If we really want to milk the gay Romeo and Juliet theme, why not a cowboy falling in love with a ferocious Indian brave whose tribe has sworn to exterminate him (and vice versa)?

Or how about a gay man and a lesbian paired off as a faux hetero couple by unthinking fundamentalist activists at Exodus, but who actually fell in love with each other just as they became disenchanted with Exodus, which left them with no place to hide, no one to accept them (for two open and unrepentant homosexuals cannot be said to be "saved" merely by falling into heterosexual carnal knowledge), and anathema to gay activists who'd denounced them as "ex gays." Crazy as that might sound, a relationship hated and spurned by both lovers' peers (with no available "support group") would seem truer to Romeo and Juliet than a pair of gay cowboys.

Sean concludes by complaining that the stereotype doesn't fit him:

....self-loathing and the necessity of keeping things hidden don't govern adult reality for many of us, and it's not clear to me why we should push the line that Brokeback Mountain says more than it actually does about the gay experience just to get more exposure for gay love stories.

Ah, but the magic of the "self loathing" stereotype is that these days it's applied to those who disagree with the stereotype! There's only one way out of the old "self-loathing" stereotype, and that's the new identity politics. There is a group for you, it defines "your" culture because it has been assigned a role and a script in "our" culture, and you have been assigned to it based on what you do with your genitalia. Therefore, you will accept, follow, and embrace it!

That's because the only alternative is the old self loathing, comrade!

Why, we'll even let you be a gay cowboy!

What, you don't like your new identity? Obviously you hate yourself.

(Be careful, or else we'll hate you too!)

UPDATE (12/25/05): A front page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer massages box office statistics in a manner almost calculated to persuade non-critical readers that "Brokeback Mountain" is already a huge success:

In its opening weekend, in five theaters in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the movie pulled in more per theater than almost any film in the last two decades. Last weekend, in 69 theaters, it took in $36,354 per theater, according to Box Office Mojo, more than twice the average of King Kong (though Kong's total, $66 million, dwarfed Brokeback's $3.5 million).

"Five theaters in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco" constitutes niche marketing.

What remains to be seen (as the Inquirer admits) is how well the film will do in the national metroplex market:

Early next month, the film is to open in 300 to 800, where it will have to perform on a much broader stage.

From what I've read, the film targets the mainstream heterosexual market, but that doesn't guarantee that they'll be lining up to see it in large numbers. Hype won't persuade people to see a film with which they can't identify, nor will a good scolding. (It's a real stretch to blame "heterosexual bigotry" for the failure of people to see a film.)

If only there'd been a major coordinated attack on the film by social conservatives with massive boycotts and picket lines in front of every theater! That might have triggered a Brokeback Mountain backlash, but the social conservatives seem to be learning what not to do. (I guess I should keep my trap shut about such things....)

MORE: I think, however, that it would be a mistake to misread this strategic silence as an indication of tolerance or an embrace of a live-and-let-live philosophy.

That's because the hard core opposition to the film arises from a moral collectivist belief that people are not responsible for their own actions:

"If [Brokeback Mountain] encourages even one confused boy to engage in sex with another male, that makes it an instrument of corruption, not one of enlightenment."

I may be in a minority, but I can't think of a single time -- at any point in my life -- where sex resulted from confusion.

posted by Eric on 12.23.05 at 09:11 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3151

Comments

It is important not to confuse the image of the film (gay cowboys in the closet)from the film itself. Not about gay identity at all, It's about not letting social or self-labels mark one's choices while still acknowledging it's hard not to. Check out http:..differentdrummer.typepad,com/ for another point of view

mark · December 23, 2005 10:53 AM

Excellent post! I enjoyed your analysis, although I find myself wondering how many viewers will share your assessment of bisexuality (a thing many activists claim does not exist).

Eric Scheie · December 23, 2005 11:33 AM

Why cowboys?

[pansy]Because you're out there in the wide open range with all those gorgeous cowboys. You thilly![/pansy]

Alan Kellogg · December 23, 2005 01:33 PM

"Sean Kinsell demonstrates why he's one of the most honest voices in the blogosphere. [...] If only a time would come when it wouldn't require the courage that Sean displays to say what really amounts to common sense."

The way my parents usually put that is "When are you going to learn to think before you start shooting your mouth off, buddy boy?" I like your version better. :)

On the topic of gay conformism: I've always found it truly dumbfounding that people would go through the tortuous, torturous process of coming out and freeing themselves from the expectations of their straight friends and family...and then immediately start letting themselves be cowed by bossy queers into parroting this or that approved line of thinking on the new team. Bewildering, just bewildering.

Sean Kinsell · December 23, 2005 07:02 PM

Can't relate to "Gone With the Wind"? Next you'll be saying you don't connect with "The Sound of Music". Well, that's the very last time I send you any couture made from my old curtains!!

Flea · December 23, 2005 09:55 PM

Thanks for the kind words about my analysis of
Brokeback Mountain. It's true many dispute the existence of bisexuality, but that could only refer to some essence of individuals not the reality of their behavior. My point was not that Ennis and Jack were bisexuals but that they ultimately weren't interested in self-labelling and that might be progress. The sexual orientation categories have not proven easy for scientists to define or explain (cf. Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire) and many societies either have no categories, define them differently, or have had changing definitions over time. Self-labelling only rests on how people have lived, not on what might unexpectedly emerge. Ennis certainly would not have thought of himself as anything but straight UNTIL he met Jack. But few people who enjoy heterosexuality will feel the need to consider whether they might also enjoy homosexuality. No incentive. Yet, some might but probably will never know. Same thing is true in reverse. Before Stonewall, closeted gays often had heterosexual experiences. Now, it might be less true and that could be a loss for some of them. The belief thatwe must be either this or that is self-limiting. As a straight man I have no desire
that i am aware of for men, but I can't know that there never could be an exception. My motivation to discover that exception is nil, but that doesn't mean it must be ruled out in theory. History is full of unruly events.

mark · December 24, 2005 08:21 AM

Did you ever see a French film called "Les Nuits Fauves"? (Savage Nights) It sounds a tiny bit like your "Exodus" film premise, which is an interesting idea that merits developing: the first twenty minutes can suffice for the setup, and the rest of the movie can explore the characters' obsession with one another, which of course grows in response to the obstacles placed between them.

I leave you to figure out the denouement.

"Les Nuits Fauves" is about a gay HIV positive Frenchman who falls in crazily, passionately in love with a gorgeous, wild 17-year old....girl.

And she with him. They have lots of passionate unprotected sex. He also carries on with a guy, but the relationship with him is clearly depicted as secondary: his emotional focus is this wild and crazy filly.

He dies of AIDS. Not sure what happens to her. The actress who played the 17-year-old was extraordinary.

Not a realistic premise? The film was step-for-step autobiographical. The filmmaker died of AIDs before the film was released. The only problem I had with it is that the issue of pregnancy is not addressed. Otherwise it was a very honest, raw look at the odd vagaries of the human heart.

diana · December 25, 2005 01:01 PM

"Les Nuits Fauves." Thanks! I'll look for it at my local rental place. This is the second film recommendation I've gotten from readers this month; the other was "Once Were Warriors" which I just saw and loved.

Eric Scheie · December 26, 2005 04:22 PM

Didn't Cyril Qu'est-ce-qui's-his-name come in for a lot of criticism because the actual girl he fell in love with did get infected and die? I'm pretty sure she doesn't in the movie, though it's been years since I saw it.

Sean Kinsell · December 27, 2005 12:40 AM

In her web site biography, Annie Proulx notes in an aside:

"(I should mention that some people in Wyoming object mightily to my stories which do not always project upright, noble, pure characters. I lean toward realism, not myth.)"

Actually, the Wyoming natives I've spoken with, who have read her, don't like her writing because she generally depicts Wyomingites as nose-picking cretins, no more realistic than depicting us all as noble savages. One could wonder why she's chosen to live amongst folk for whom she displays such contempt.

But then in another aside, she describes her travels around Wyoming and the region as:

"(a slow drift through the territory under examination taking notes, photographs, reading regional papers, books, hiking the terrain, studying maps and weather and where the local money comes from)."

She doesn't mention actually, you know, talking to people. Also, living in the wannabe ski resort of Centennial, it's possible she could go for weeks without seeing a native Wyomingite, much less actually speaking to one.

To be fair, she may have made an effort to talk to Wyomingites, but a lot of folks around here are so deeply into the 'mind your own business' mindset that they don't like nosy Yankees. It takes awhile to get to know folks around here.

On the other hand, the MYOB mindset is such that Wyoming isn't nearly the Hell on Earth for gays that the media likes to depict, despite the impression you might have gotten from The Laramie Project (The gays involved in producing the "documentary" talk of being in fear for their lives and then blythily walk into the two roughest bars in town and proceed to ask questions about a seriously sensitive topic. Me thinks the fear was for effect.). Please remember that the Rev. Fred Phelps had to be imported from Kansas for the Matthew Shepard trial, so I suspect there are worst places to be gay.

As a final note, it's my understanding that Ennis and Jack aren't cowboys, they're sheep herders. Cowboys don't do sheep.. Ah, er, that didn't come out quite like I intended, but you know what I mean.

Swen Swenson · December 27, 2005 01:36 PM

Or how about a gay man and a lesbian paired off as a faux hetero couple by unthinking fundamentalist activists at Exodus, but who actually fell in love with each other just as they became disenchanted with Exodus, which left them with no place to hide, no one to accept them (for two open and unrepentant homosexuals cannot be said to be "saved" merely by falling into heterosexual carnal knowledge), and anathema to gay activists who'd denounced them as "ex gays." Crazy as that might sound, a relationship hated and spurned by both lovers' peers (with no available "support group") would seem truer to Romeo and Juliet than a pair of gay cowboys.

Heck, I'd go see that one, and I'm one of those Eeeevil Christians that Hollywood loves to hate. I may not particularly approve of homosexual activities, but I don't approve of pre- or extra-marital sex, murder, drinking (to excess), or any number of other things that are glorified in many of the movies that I love (and many of the people I love, too).

If it's a decent story, I'm interested. If not, I'll save my money. It's that simple.

Robin S. · December 29, 2005 03:04 PM

diana, the reviews I've read for Savage Nights list Collard's character as bisexual. Does the film present him as going from gay to sexually involved with a girl, or is he bisexual from the outset?

Carl · January 2, 2006 01:43 AM

I appreciate and understand the point of view expressed here about an "all-gays-must-(insert verb here)" mentality, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I like to think that I'm a "let me think for myself, thank you" type of person. (And some of the suggestions for "a movie I'd like to see" above my comment need to be fleshed out! I'd go see those.)

It's not, and it shouldn't be, anyone's duty to see any film.

However, I did see the movie just over a week ago, and I've been recommending to friends of mine, regardless of their sexual orientation, that they should check it out.
I'm not telling them to see it because of any unspoken message it carries about the time and place in which it's set, or because it's some ground-breaking film where "A-list" actors portray the gay characters.
I'm telling them to see it because it's a well-told story (both author and adaptor are Pulitzer Prize winners), includes some phenomenal acting from the entire cast, and it's beautifully presented by a gifted director who has an insane level of attention to detail (and a kick-ass cinematographer working with him).

And although I'm sure it will move too slowly for some, it's one of the very few movies I've seen in many years that (if it does manage to get to you) sticks with you for days afterwards. Not since I saw "Witness" twenty years ago (and I'm not a police detective from South Philly, nor am I Amish) have I been unable to shake a film from my mind for this long.

Whether you see it or not is up to you -- you know your tastes better than anyone else. But I think perhaps the objection is coming from how the recommendation is couched. I just think it's a damn fine film, and if it were the same story, but not told well, I'd tell you to keep your money and stay home.

Troy · January 3, 2006 02:00 PM