[Editor’s note: The University News recieved a number of letters about Kristian Marlow’s Feb. 23 column “Broke-plot movie”-more than we had space to print. We have chosen to publish this commentary, by Dan Herman, because he does well to summarize the major points of most of the letters.]
In his Feb. 23rd column, Kristian Marlow explains his distaste for the film Brokeback Mountain. He writes that “the movie entirely missed the point.” I submit that, after reading his column, it was Marlow who entirely missed the point. He claims that the characters’ homosexuality was a “complete surprise.” I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be an entertainment writer would not have heard about the plot. For months, the “gay cowboy movie” has been one of the biggest stories in entertainment news. But, despite my skepticism, I will take him at his word.
Marlow claims to have been taken by surprise by the protagonists’ sexual orientation. This puzzles me; was he looking for clues? Was he expecting one to be a hair dresser and one to be an interior decorator? Would it have helped if one had talked with a lisp? This highlights a common stereotype in our society-that people expect gays to act a certain way. For many, there must be some quality that marks them as gay, be it an eye for fashion or blond highlights in their hair. Just as my whole life isn’t about being straight, a homosexual’s whole life isn’t about being gay.
Marlow writes that “there was simply nothing to set up the idea of a true relationship.” Maybe he was expecting blatant flirting-but that wouldn’t have made sense, as he reminded us that “open homosexuality was quite uncommon.” The relationship between the two cowboys, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist, was one that was subtle and understated. It had to be, to seem realistic for the time period and setting. Perhaps it was too subtle for Kristian Marlow-but there are many more-obvious Hollywood romances released every year for him to see. In viewing the movie, I found that I was able to detect the sexual tension and awkward feelings between the two characters.
Marlow tells the reader that he finds it surprising that the two cowboys would have sex up in the mountains because he doesn’t think they were attractive enough. Perhaps Marlow lives in a world where only supremely attractive people have sex or where only heterosexual couples are sleeping together. If so, then he may be disturbed to find that reality includes people of all looks and sexual orientations having sex all over the world. What’s more, Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are often considered among the more attractive young stars of Hollywood; it is to their credit that they would undertake such a challenging project.
Much of Marlow’s anger is directed at the film’s sex scene, which he describes as both “totally unnecessary sodomy” and “uncalled for but quite amusing.” He describes the whole film as a “drawn-out porno.” I am more confused by these accusations than any other part of the column. Brokeback Mountain had some of the more tasteful sex scenes of most major films that are released these days. Perhaps I have been grossly desensitized by liberal Hollywood, but I found the sex scene to appear realistic and actually was surprised by how little it showed. It was far more conservative than the holiday movie season’s most disturbing and shocking sex scene, in Munich. The main character envisions a terrorist attack that resulted in the slaughter of Israeli athletes as he has sex with his pregnant wife. I found that scene to be more upsetting and unnecessary than anything in Brokeback Mountain, and that was from Steven Spielberg, arguably one of Hollywood’s most successful directors.
I look at Marlow’s article, and I am trying to find out what bothered him so much about the film. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion; and if he didn’t enjoy the film, I understand. Some people would find it slow and uneventful. Some people are just not interested in the story of these two cowboys. But the reasons he gave-I see them as unfounded and weak. The Web site RottenTomatos.com, which compiles reviews from all over the country, gave the film 85/100, and the Internet Movie Database has given the film 8.0/10. Of course there are a fair number of bad reviews out there, both by critics and viewers, but this film is undeniably important. Brokeback Mountain may have its flaws, and it was not my favorite movie of the winter, by any means, but it is a far cry from “wretched” or “trash.”
And I am left with my question: Why did Marlow write the column? What was his final point? Was he merely telling the reader to not see the movie? Fine, he could have expressed his opinion much more clearly and done that in about two paragraphs. Why did he waste my time with 11 paragraphs that said the same thing? Was he offended by the movie? Its homosexual content?
No one is forcing him to watch it. Or was it merely for shock value? That would be the most disappointing answer to my question. Marlow’s column is weak journalism, certainly, but I would hope that, in the end, he would have some overarching point that he was trying to make. If he was only looking to inspire some anger in his readers. he may have succeeded. But I have a deeper anger at the kind of writing that belongs in internet blogs rather than in a newspaper. Marlow needs to understand that, in writing a column, especially on any medium such as art, literature, music or film, he must lay out his opinion, back it up, and in the end come to a much broader conclusion about society, the entertainment industry or something. But whatever conclusion he arrives at, I would hope it wouldn’t be expressed with such poor writing as “if negative stars were a quantity, this movie would go to infinity.” This is simply wasting our time.
Dan Herman is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
