Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Men in LoveIs Brokeback Mountain a gay film?

By David Leavitt
Posted Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005, at 12:06 PM ET
Love out of bounds? Click image to expand.

Big love, in stories about men, tends to be a cheat, a lost cause, or a chimera. In Brokeback Mountain—Ang Lee's moving, operatic film adaptation of Annie Proulx's story—it's exactly what the tag line for the film says: a force of nature. Herding sheep just above the tree line on a Wyoming mountain, two dirt-poor cowboys find themselves suddenly caught up in a passion for each other that they have no idea how to name, much less cope with. Neither thinks of himself as "queer." On the contrary, the mountain itself gets both the credit and the blame for the affair that over the next 20 years will endow their lives with an intermittent grandeur, even as in other ways it drags them to the ground.

Is Brokeback Mountain, as it's been touted, Hollywood's first gay love story? The answer—in a very positive sense, I think—is yes to the love story, no to the gay. Make no mistake: The film is as frank in its portrayal of sex between men as in its use of old-fashioned romance movie conventions. Its stars are unabashedly glamorous. The big-eyed Jake Gyllenhaal is a far cry from Proulx's small, bucktoothed Jack Twist, just as the blond, square-jawed Heath Ledger is nothing like her Ennis Del Mar, "scruffy and a little cave-chested." Yet, even if, in their tailored jeans and ironed plaid shirts, Gyllenhaal and Ledger sometimes look more like Wrangler models than teenagers too poor to buy a new pair of boots, the film neither feels synthetic (in the manner of the abysmal Making Love) nor silly (in the manner of gay porn). On the contrary, his stars' outsize screen presence provides Lee with a means of bringing to vivid cinematic life what is in essence a paean to masculinity.

And masculine the film is. Ledger's astonishing performance reveals an unsuspected vein of tenderness in a character more likely to express emotion through violence than words. His Ennis Del Mar is as monolithic as the mountainscape in which—with the same swiftness, brutality, and precision that he exhibits in shooting an elk—he fucks Jack Twist for the first time. ("Gun's goin' off," Jack grunts in response—in the story, not the movie.) Ennis' surprise at the affair—at its inconvenience as much as at its intensity—reflects a fundamental humbleness that keeps butting up against Jack's willingness to take risks. It's Jack who proposes, over and over, that they start up a ranch together, a plan Ennis counters with pragmatism (not to mention fear), even after his wife, Alma, divorces him. Instead Ennis limits the relationship to fishing and hunting trips two or three times a year. It's as if he believes they don't deserve better.

As for Jack, the same cockiness that makes him dream of a "sweet life" with Ennis also leads him to pursue sex with other men, despite his own marriage—something Ennis never contemplates. In a key scene, Jack, disappointed at learning that, even after his divorce, Ennis has no intention of making a life with him, drives to a louche simulacrum of Juarez, where he picks up a hustler and disappears with him into the literal darkness of a back alley. The scene is unsettling because it presents such a stark contrast to Jack and Ennis' heady, exalted mountaintop lovemaking. For just a few seconds, we get a glimpse of the urban nightscape that was the locus of the very gay movies that might have been playing, in big cities, at the moment when the scene takes place—movies like Nighthawks and Taxi zum Klo, in which sexual profligacy is at once celebrated as a form of liberation and mourned as a pallid substitute for meaningful connection.

Gyllenhaal's character tries to prove he "ain't no queer." Click image to expand.

It goes without saying that Brokeback Mountain is an entirely different kind of film. Perhaps it takes a woman to create a tale in which two men experience sex and love as a single thunderbolt, welding them together for life; certainly Proulx's story is a far cry from such canonical gay novels as Edmund White's The Farewell Symphony or Allan Hollinghurst's The Swimming Pool Library, which poeticize urban promiscuity and sexual adventuring. Proulx, by contrast, exalts coupledom by linking it to nature. Her narration, with its echoes of Western genre fiction, is knobby and elliptical, driven by an engine as unpredictable as the one that runs Jack Twist's troublesome truck, with the result that it often backs into scenes that a more conventional writer would place front and center.

Though Brokeback Mountain may have the sheen of a Hollywood romance, it is anything but conventional. True, screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana have ironed out Proulx's kinks, but they haven't eliminated her eccentricities; instead, they've found a cinematic parallel in their appropriation of Hollywood conventions of masculinity. This is particularly the case in the last half of the film, which alternates scenes of quotidian domestic grief (and the rare emotional triumph) with the trips that Jack and Ennis make together into the mountains—trips during which, as they age, sex takes a back seat to bickering and what might best be described as a kind of conjugal ease. What both men want, it becomes clear, is what Ennis is afraid to let them have: the steadiness of each other's companionship. By the end, Ledger's Ennis has crow's feet, while Gyllenhaal's Jack has sprouted a prosthetic paunch and a heavy mustache. The result is a defense of gay marriage made all the more eloquent by its evasion of the banalities implied in the word "gay."

Indeed, with the one exception of the scene in Juarez, nothing in Brokeback Mountain cries "gay." Neither of the heroes eschews sex with women; instead, they simply assert that they prefer sex with each other. At one point in the story, Ennis asks Jack, "This happen a other people?" and Jack answers, "It don't happen in Wyomin and if it does I don't know what they do, maybe go to Denver." Interestingly, McMurtry and Ossana leave this lone mention of possible urban refuge out of the movie, the point of which seems to be less to subvert the conventions of male bonding than to extend them. "Lover" isn't a word Ennis and Jack ever utter. Instead they call each other "friend." When they kiss, their teeth hit. Respect for some burdensome ideal of masculine struggle underlies and at the same time undercuts their ability to love each other: an idea that Ledger in particular brings home by investing his performance with the deadpan, reticent tenderness of Hollywood Western stars from the 1950s. His stoicism drives the movie, and nowhere more movingly than when he utters its signature line: "If you can't fix it you've got to stand it."

Does the fact that none of the principals involved in Brokeback Mountain is openly gay have anything to do with the film's happy resistance to the stale clichés of gay cinema? Perhaps. In any case, McMurtry, Ossana, and Lee deserve as much credit for their tenacity (it took them seven years to get the movie made) as for the skill with which they've translated Proulx's spare, bleak story into a film with an epic sweep that nonetheless manages to be affectingly idiosyncratic in its portrayal of two men in love. In the end, Brokeback Mountain is less the story of a love that dares not speak its name than of one that doesn't know how to speak its name, and is somehow more eloquent for its lack of vocabulary. Ascending from plains where they lead lives of drudgery and routine humiliation, Ennis and Jack become the unwitting heroes of a story they haven't a clue how to tell. The world breaks their backs, but in this brave film, they're as iconic as the mountain.

Click here to read David Edelstein's review of Brokeback Mountain.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
David Leavitt is the author, most recently, of The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention of the Computer. He teaches at the University of Florida, where he edits the literary journal Subtropics.
Stills of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal (top) and Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway (bottom) from Brokeback Mountain © Focus Features.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

David Leavitt opens his article "Men in Love" by saying that Brokeback Mountain is not a story about "gay" love. The movie is about a sexual and, by Leavitt's account, very romantic relationship between two men. What, exactly, does it mean to say that such a relationship is "not gay"?

If Leavitt were only saying that the film isn't typical of gay cinema, that would make sense. If he were only saying that Jake and Ennis aren't gay characters, that would make sense. (From the review's description, they could be bisexual.) Leavitt says both those things, but he also says that Ennis and Jake's relationship isn't gay.

Someone help me here. Does a man who has sex with men have to self-identify as "gay" or come out in order to have a "gay" relationship? If so, do my grandmom and granddad have a "straight" relationship? In their world, "straight" refers only to a geometrical property; they wouldn't use the word to describe themselves or their relationship. Their ignorance of contemporary English does not make their relationship any less straight.

At one point, Leavitt writes that the one thing in the movie that "cries 'gay'" is a scene involving prostitution. It troubles me that Leavitt associates gayness with promiscuity.

To my mind, any romantic or sexual relationship between two men counts as gay, whether it's faithful or unfaithful, brief or enduring, noble or base, urban or rural, public or secretive, between masculine men or between effeminate men. I'm surprised that Leavitt thinks the word "gay" means more than "homosexual" and saddened that he seems to think it means something negative.

--unempirical

(To reply, click here)


so, david, it's not a gay love story because it does not conform to stereotypical perceptions of what is gay?

the premise here seems to be that homosexuality and "gay" are different. frankly, i'd like to be kept abreast of such shifts in semantics. like many, i was under the apparently mistaken impression that "gay" was a term describing either a state of happiness or a homosexual male. i did not realize it meant only uncloseted, effeminate homosexual males. preferably flaming ones.

what do we have then, a homosexual love story, but not a gay one? because gays cannot be masculine? or sleep with women? or be awkward with each other? is there not enough tight leather?

it seems that our author is almost disappointed in the lack of stereotypes. two men who find they prefer each other, sexually. they don't find it unnaturally, but still struggle with it. they have an emotional, as well as sexual connection. they are portrayed as masculine figures, while still making their sexual preference obvious. and for this, we are told, it is not a "gay" story.

now, i'll qualify this with mentioning i've not seen the film. but if this article's author is accurate in his description, then i am baffled by his conclusion. what would qualify as a "gay" love story? does it need to be set in san francisco and have the village people on the soundtrack? why bemoan a refusal to propagate stereotypes? isn't this akin to saying a film is not a black love story because it isn't set in the inner city and no gangs are in the film?

--twiffertheGnu

(To reply, click here)


I expected better from Leavitt than this. I would have thought that as a gay man Leavitt would have gladly pointed out that this movie illustrates just one of the many situations in which same sex couples find themselves. Gay relationships occur between conservatives and liberals, blue collar workers and the executive class, and the faithful and the faithless. You don't have to be a screaming queen or a leather adonis to be gay.

To characterize this movie as he does is just one more way that the gay community sabotages itself. Instead of jumping up and down that someone has finally created a portrayal of a gay relationship outside of today's stereotypical limp-wristed artiste confines, he devotes his energy to sanitizing the story for mass consumption, presumably to make it more palatable for the "moral" majority.

And, as if that weren't enough, Leavitt goes on to undermine even his own review by resorting to stupid and sophomoric wordcrafting which is ever so not subtly woven into the review. How could you even begin to convince an audience that a movie is not a gay love story when you refer to the "cockiness" of Jack Twist, or use lines like "…humbleness that keeps butting up against..."?

It is no wonder gay couples have problems being perceived as legitimate when the members of their own community cannot legitimize relationships outside the box of current mainstream misperception.

--apcw11

(To reply, click here)

(12/9)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap