I elected not to watch the Oscars this year.

[brak666]

I've had mixed feelings about Brokeback Mountain since I read the short story. It wasn't bad. But it wasn't great. I enjoyed it on that level that one enjoys sad stories. I haven't seen the movie. I probably will someday. I know Ang Lee is a wonderful director. I'm sure it was a beautifully shot, well-acted, well-directed movie. But I have to confess to be baffled as to how it's ground-breaking. I've been reading around the post-oscar entries on my friends list. And latxcvi says pretty much everything I've been trying to say since the movie came out, but haven't been quite able to put words to.

I hesitate to say too much here because I've not yet seen Brokeback, and it's entirely possible that when I do, I'll have the same strong emotional connection with it others have, but ... If I'm being honest, I got really tired, really quickly, with hearing how revolutionary and ground-breaking it was. The whole idea of gay love denied/frowned upon because society wouldn't approve/understand? Of someone even essentially being punished because they eventually *aren't* willing to deny their homosexuality any more (which is certainly a credible reading of what ultimately happens to Jack in the story; I've read the short story, so I do know what I'm saying here)? That's a very traditional story, one Hollywood has told before. Is it great that that story is being seen in parts of America that wouldn't have countenanced hosting it 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Yes, that is great. But that doesn't mean the *story* itself is saying anything particularly revelatory or that's never been said before?

Comments

[ladyjax.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the post is f-locked but I totally get where your friend is coming from just from the little I read above. In the post-Oscar bitchfest about Brokeback not winning Best Picture, I have yet to hear one person talk about how a movie like Transamerica didn't somehow get the same traction as Brokeback.

And yeah, the ground-breaking part is beyond me at this point.

[lucylooo.livejournal.com]

I didn't like the novella, and I didn't like it for a lot of the same reasons that you've stated here before - it's a retread of SO MUCH that has already been written, in the 40s and 50s and 60s, but done by a "mainstream" author, so it seems brand new to all of the people who have no idea about the history of gay fiction. It's not a new story. It's not (imho), a very good story. There are so many other, better stories that I would have much preferred to see, and I really don't know if I ever will. It is to sigh.

[molly-o.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but none of those other movies were about **cowboys**.

Seriously, I think you and LaT have a point -- I'm not sure the story itself is so very groundbreaking. The high profile of the film might be what people are referring to. These things have been said before, but not with A-list actors and director and a big budget.

[brak666.livejournal.com]

Oh, I well understand the significance of how this movie has been received. But there's a big difference between that and the significance of the story it's telling.

[sorka42.livejournal.com]

I think part of it, from short story to movie, to oscar nominee hype is that so much is being made about a story that as slash readers, would be considered a mediocer romance story with a tradgic ending. My utter dislike for death-stories might color my perceptions of the movie, but compared to some of the stuff written as fanfiction this story just wasn't moving enough.