The "Brokeback Effect"

(substantially revised 12/9/05 10:08 pm PST)

(click on the image for the big country-size view)

On one level, this image from the new film "Brokeback Mountain" fronting this morning's NYT Arts Section is vintage "Marlboro Man." The clever hook to this movie, however (which I'm convinced must also affect the way one looks at this picture), is how the meaning shifts when you realize these guys are lovers.

I think the closest The BAG comes to looking at this effect is in considering the effect of the text on a magazine cover, or a caption on a news photo.  It almost goes without saying that context has everything to do with how we process the picture.

You can fault me for stereotyping or sexual bias, but I'll tell you some of the ways I'm diverted once aware of the movie plot line.

If these were straight guys, I would be more interested in what they were looking at or where they were going.  Knowing they're lovers, however, I'm more inclined to wonder what these poses suggest about their roles in the relationship, or how they are getting along.

Knowing these guys are gay also gives me a different sense about the landscape.  If these were two straight guys, I'd be more inclined to think they were traveling.  Otherwise, I might be tempted to think that this is home.

On another dimension (because everything these days seems to revolve around war), I was interested in this segment of The Times review:

America's squeaky closet doors may have swung open far enough for a gay rodeo circuit to flourish. But let's not kid ourselves. In large segments of American society, especially in sports and the military, those doors remain sealed. The murder of Matthew Shepard, after all, took place in "Brokeback" territory.

Another recent film, "Jarhead" ... suggests how any kind of male behavior perceived as soft and feminine within certain closed male environments triggers abuse and violence and how that repression of sexual energy is directly channeled into warfare.

Although the quote gets overly psychoanalytic toward the end, it highlights the tendency for American men to overcompensate rather than appear soft.  If you take out the word "soft" and substitute the word "weak," how much might that account, for example, for why Bush immediately put America on a war footing following 9/11?

(image: Kimberly French/Focus Features.  December 9, 2005.  The New York Times/Weekend Arts. p. B1)

Comments

[eva]

"These guys" are men, something the photo shows, no matter their posture or the context.

[Marysz]

In the photo, neither man is looking at each other. The horses in the background seem better able to relate to each other than these two men. The man on the left is stretched out on the ground, but in a not altogether relaxed way. The man on the right is holding a gun at his side, but in such a passive position that it might as well be a walking stick. Even though they're standing in an open field, emotionally they're at the crossroads.

[SEAS]

Well, here we have two (reputedly) straight guys pretending to be gay guys who are pretending to be straight, being marketed to whom - gay guys? the Art House crowd? the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? I am struck by the masculine high wide and lonesome image of two guys whose relationship appears to look so ordinary and comfortable (mirrored by their horses'). Perhaps its a gender related difference as to whether they appear to be distant, as marysz sees, or close, in a masculine sense as I see it. While they aren't looking at each other, they are looking at the same thing, which (to generalize outrageously) for men is the same as, and their feet are in one another's bubble which is rather intimate in a one-step-removed sense. What you make of the emotions in this evocative picture is probably a Rorschach test of sexual awareness, tolerance or curiosity.

I didn't see the movie Jarhead, but having been through the military, there's no doubt that a huge part of the goal of military training is focusing testosterone laden young guys on something other than sex. Perhaps this film becomes the fulcrum at the cultural tipping point that society decides to just let them have the sex.

[Cactus]

Not sure the fault is in stereotyping. I remember hearing that scientists have shown that our brain fills in missing pieces of text or image based on what the brain expects to see. Picture a man and a woman walking down a hallway carrying briefcases. One would probably assume they work together, are on the way to a conference, etc. However, if you throw in the info that they are lovers, then you can question their body language, is the hallway an office or a hotel, etc.

As for the "Marlboro Men" in the photo, I don't think a "MM" would be lying down with legs crossed. He'd probably squat on a log with horse reins in hand, ready for action. According to the plot-line, these guys meet in 1963 and the film covers years of their up/down relationship. We don't know where the photo lies in that timeline.

However, the guy lying down seems fixed, happy to stay where he is, almost challenging the standing guy to come back to him. Standing guy is looking off to the distance (future?) with his back to his partner. If I had to guess, standing guy seems less comfortable in the relationship, looking for..........? Maybe he can't let go of what is/was expected of him.

Another thing I noticed......the BAG's post is 24 hours old and yet no men have posted a comment. Curious.

(Note: Except for SEAS.....I posted this earlier, but it didn't take...computer's been acting up. Sunspots??)

[Asta]

Well, Cactus pretty much summed it all up. But I'd like to throw in a few observations.

BAG's comment "If you take out the word "soft" and substitute the word "weak," how much might that account, for example, for why Bush immediately put America on a war footing following 9/11?" has been overlooked, and I say that because his observation IS IMPORTANT. There is a myriad of rumors about Bushie's sexual orientation and confusion, and I think BAG's comment is important.

Also, I just recently read the short story, and I do mean *short* story, and while it was written by a woman, I gleaned a better understanding of the nature of this love story.

As for analyzing this photo, hmm, these two cowboys appear very comfortable in each other's company. (I also expect the cinematography in this movie to be spectacular.) I know I will not view this movie at the theater. I will wait for it to come out on DVD and then my husband and I can view it privately and discuss it. Not that we're psychotic or anything, it's just that some love stories are too painful to watch in public.

As an aside: Hubbie's little brother came out of the closet a while back and Hubbie is still having a hard time accepting the transition (brother left wife of twelve years and two children) and we haven't seen brother in 8 years. Something has got to give. It's family, how do we cross the bridge?

I would like to see my brother-in-law again soon. He's one of the most caring and giving people I've ever known.

What would happen if Bush could come out of the closet?
You think he might stop killing people? I have to wonder.

[readytoblowagasket]

It was widely reported that the first Bush lost re-election because he was perceived as "weak." Would a son suffer the same humiliation? Someone who can't get help for a substance-abuse problem has issues about appearing "weak."

Interesting that The BAG refers to the Marlboro Man, a fictional character from an ad. I can't shake echos of that reference looking at this image, or from a dozen (or more) Madison Avenue or Hollywood versions of "the West." I can't read this image as authentic because it's too pretty. And because it's so pretty, I can't suspend my disbelief. This could be a scene from a Disney movie (sorry, Ang Lee), it's so clear, pure, and sweet. This may be how the landscape (in Canada) looks, but it's not even close to how life looks. The actors are too well-fed, too well-groomed, too good-looking, too clean-shaven. (Even their horses are too pretty.) Also, both men's postures seem completely unconvincing to me. Heath Ledger's stance is especially ridiculous. Who stands like that? And who lies on the ground like Jake Gyllenhaal? Ang Lee may be trying to show that this relationship is "clean" and "pure," but it doesn't look much different from other fictional cowboy images. I think that's because Hollywood created — and therefore owns — this "iconic" American imagery, so that even the best directors can't escape its grip. The most I can wonder is whether Jake is supposed to be the "bottom" and Heath the "top" in the relationship.

The review paragraphs quoted reads like a handful of non sequiturs. (Who is he addressing when he says, "Let's not kid ourselves"? How many of us know that the gay rodeo is "flourishing"? What does Matthew Shepard have to do with the sports and military "segments" of American society? Shepard's murderers were in the methamphetamine-user "segment" of society. Since when are movies, even those based on a true story, total stand-ins for real-life? Other than sharing a star, what does "Jarhead" have to do with Ang Lee's movie?) I can't take this reviewer's muddy logic seriously.

[janinsanfran]

They're cute. I know some guys who are going to love this. From a gay perspective, this is a totally recognizable scene.

[SEAS]

I agree with readytoblowagasket that the review went off the deep end when it tried to connect such a hodgepodge of sentences. Makes you wonder about his judgment in the rest of the piece.

Cactus makes an interesting observation re few men seeming to comment on this item: your reaction to the image (knowing these guy's relationship) reveals too much about yourself on a subject men are not allowed to discuss among themselves. Displaying one's sexuality cuts too close to the bone, a place many (most?) men are uncomfortable exposing.

[black dog barking]

To readytoblowagasket's list of visual anomolies add that it must be cold -- buttoned coat, raised collar, both gloves cold. I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must be stretched out on the thinly vegetated, rocky, cold ground.

Whether this works with SEAS' "uncomfortable exposur(e)" is interesting. The previews, the hype, this photo; all shout "contrived" to me.

[lightkeeper]

First of all, I think the image is supposed to remind us of the marlboro man (or men). This is explicitly what Ang Lee is trying to do, taking a ridiculously 'straight' image and one filled with homosocial tendencies and turning it on its head, ie exploring its shadow which hitherto has been completely unexplored.

While there is probably no connection btw this film and Jarhead, apart from both being carried by the same star, I think there are important socio-cultural norms one could dissect from intersecting them. For instance, why does the image suddenly become soft when we realize these two are lovers (instead of say, remaining a sanitized idea of what a cowboy is)? Or why does repressed sexuality equal 'more' masculinity?

Finally, its interesting that men are still afraid to voice their views on this even within an online web forum, a place where they remain completely anonymous and where they will rarely meet someone in real life who visits the same forums. Notice also that this is only the case with men - women seem to have no problem talking about these things, and haven't really had a problem for a very long time historically.

[readytoblowagasket]

lightkeeper said: "This is explicitly what Ang Lee is trying to do, taking a ridiculously 'straight' image and one filled with homosocial tendencies and turning it on its head, ie exploring its shadow which hitherto has been completely unexplored."

I think you've made some great points, lightkeeper. I would add that I think a reading of the image is influenced by not only one's gender but also by one's sexual orientation. I say this because the Marlboro Man has been a gay male icon for decades. To gay men, he is not ridiculously straight, he's obviously GAY. The shadow has been explored, just not in the straight world.

I believe Ang Lee can pull off whatever it is he is exploring, particularly when it comes to iconic American imagery, relationships, and gay themes; in the hands of someone else, I wouldn't trust the movie, however, exactly because of this image.

[jt in B.C.]

The before picture is puzzling, the reclining cowboy unarmed, relaxed, partner scoping out the horizon, the contrasting colour of clothing right down to the boots is eye catching. The horses grazing freely in a peaceful placid surrounding raises many questions including why the rife ? janinsanfran's comment helped sort out my bewilderment with this general theme and readytoblowagasket added the other missing pieces to this puzzle. (as rtbag knows there’s no shortage of rugged country north of 49)
The review convinced me ( as a reader of Annie Proulx, and having lived in a place similar to that portrayed in The Shipping News ) that I’ll pass on this flick and retain the essence I found in her ‘short story’ the source for Brokeback Mountain. Hollywood notoriously distorts remarkable stories of believable authenticity converting them into photo ops/ pretty people/loud music/ prolonged promos/ MSM’s daily $ reporting/advertising / adds to my frequent cynical view of this medium and its monotonous iconic images and messages.
I'm not particularly interested in W’s sexual orientation either he’s simply a weak person from everything I’ve observed regardless of source; nature , nurture or whatever.
Alexander the Great, Hadrian and Julius Caesar were considered gay, W’s not in their league other than possibly sharing sexual proclivities but concerning EGO his strutting and other behaviours definitely suggests he believes a kinship connection exists.
When the estimated 60,000 gays ( US military ) are allowed to get beyond the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ stage it will be for pragmatic reasons rather than homophobic ones raised by the standard canard that they “affect group unit cohesion”.
All NATO countries except the US and Turkey (info to 2002) appear to function adequately confirming equal status and ( partner benefits ) for gays in their armies.
( In March of 1993, the U.S. Army named Gulf War veteran Sgt. José Zuniga the 1992 Soldier of the Year. When he came out six weeks later, his military career came to an abrupt end).]
Its possible Canada may have a place for this soldier in its elite killing group JFT2 or in other units now onerously called “peacekeeper forces ". (more than enough rambling on !)

[Cactus]

Hey, guys, lighten up on the BAG. I think he's putting out a lot of things for us to consider and comment on......not all of which will appeal to everyone.

That said, over the weekend I saw a 30-min program on LOGO-tv about the movie. I got the impression that Ang Lee wanted to tell the story of two strong, independent men who happen to fall in love and happen to be cowboys (sort of). They marry and have kids and they get back together years later. Lee also wanted to set it in territory that looked like that which cowboys of legend inhabited. All of which makes me think that he specifically wanted to mesh (or mess?) our iconic images for his film.

I also heard that the movie broke all records in attendance over the weekend, with little advertising and advance promo. Very unusual. In fact, I had not heard of the movie till the BAG post. And I live in the middle of moviedom. It only played in 3 cities and doesn't open 'wide' till towards the end of January. Can you spell O S C A R?

As to the 'beauty' of the leads......of course! It's Hollywood.....still. How many times have you seen hetero love scenes where in the woman's makeup and hair-do make it through unscathed. Never happens in real life.

[fotonique]

One effect of media perception is that it rarely lives up to reality.

Perhaps the Marlboro Man is not the best visual metaphor.

[jt from BC]

With two nights until the Oscars, one of my questions has partly been addressed and I have been challenged to reevaluate my comments about Annie Proulx as well. (I'll be watching hockey not the Hollywood big sell, with all the hoopla over this flick, the morning news of whose golden will hold five minutes of my attention.) A very interesting article:

Why Are There No Real Gays in "Brokeback Mountain"?
By JOHN SCAGLIOTTI.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ March 3, 2006

FOTONIQUE, please return and help me out here.