It isn’t remotely the same. Because if a straight couple were found to be engaging in adultery, they would get maybe some scorn, maybe ridicule, maybe lose some friends. Even in that era. Because at least they were “normal”. Ennis and Jack had no chance to be together, none.
And we are supposed to feel sympathy for his wife. I sure did. But as for the violence…I even understood that. When all your feelings are pent-up like and you are beyond frustrated and miserable, sometimes you lose your temper. And after all, he was probably thinking - you have me, don’t you? I’m here after all. I gave up all I wanted to come and live with you and take care of our child.
Not to say you should suddenly like it! But I do think it was fraught with emotion and a fairly good love story, even if it was altogether too real.
Hey, I understood it fine. I’ve been known to have problems with aggression myself. But it didn’t help me liking the guy, and if I don’t like him, why am I supposed to care about his love troubles?
Brokeback Mountain wasn’t specifically “about homosexuality”, it was about the relationship between two closeted gay men. And if it was about that, then Titanic certainly was specifically about heterosexuality – can’t have it both ways.
The fact that Squishyface and Blockhead (I didn’t see Titanic either) were a straight couple might not have been interesting enough to be a plot point, but their heterosexual romance was the centerpiece of the movie. One of the reasons Jack and Ennis couldn’t have been Jane and Ennis is that their gayness is integral to the plot, but that still doesn’t make it “about” homosexuality.
I did not see anyone who lauded it for that reason. I saw people lauding the fact that a serious drama featuring the struggles of closeted gay men was playing on so many screens, but I don’t think that had to do at all with the artistic content, nor do I think those folks would say it did.
By the way, Priceguy, I’m not trying to be confrontational. I’ve recently been made aware that apparently I can’t sense my own tone. :o I’m just curious about your perspective, and that of others who didn’t like the film.
Ensign Edison, the homosexuality thingymajig wasn’t the fault of the movie but of the marketing. I failed to make that clear. The movie was hyped because it was about two gay cowboys. I went into it expecting to see something about homosexuality in that era, and when the story turned out to have little to do with that, I was disappointed. When I didn’t find the love story interesting and when I found the protagonists, whom we’re supposed to care about, to be unlikeable assholes, there wasn’t much left to like.
It’s still immeasurably cool that a major movie was made about two gay cowboys. It shows how far we’ve come. I’m just disappointed in the movie itself.
The point is- they were cheating on their spouses. That’s just plain wrong. Now sure, it would have been hard to be openly gay at that time & place, but two “confirmed batchelors” even living together wouldn’t have raised too many eyebrows. Make sure you go to the bar once in a while, ogle some chicks ass, cheer for the football team; then go home and suck each others cocks.
Too many of the “great romantic films” involve cheating: Titanic, Bridges of Madison County, and such.
Sorry. I can never seem to express myself clearly. I wasn’t really implying you didn’t, just musing. And I understand your point, too. I generally hate stories with adultery. It ruined the Horse Whisperer for me.
But in this case, I don’t see how they had any choice. They had no way of making a life together. Everyone in that era got married and had children. If you didn’t you were assumed to be weird at the least. If they had had an opportunity to leave their spouses and marry, I would have been more critical.
The closest hetero example I can think of is Bridges of Madison County. And they did make their choices at the end, and from what I remember, stuck by them.
I agree. I have zero tolerance for people who cheat. I know things were unbelievably hard for gay people but that doesn’t mean that you need to ruin those two women’s lives, or the lives of those children, by turning it into a grand lie. It is better to do without true love than to destroy so many people. That, I think, bothered me more than anything.
I have two uncles that never married or had children and they got along fine in society. One we think was gay, the other definitely wasn’t. It wasn’t that aberrant to be a confirmed bachelor, as long as you ogled boobies at the appropriate times.
I think part of the point was to highlight the horrible positions that closeting puts people in. I think it’s hard for those who overcome the closet easily, or never had to be in it, to really grasp just how painful it is to feel essentially locked out of the human race’s most basic personal exchange. It’s so painful it drives queer folks in some cases to do things they hate just to feel a little relief. It’s not just sex or even romance, but a fundamental way of connecting with another human being that is missing.
Anyway, I think this is one of the film’s probable strong points, myself. Some of history’s greatest stories involve much worse than cheating – murder, for example. The best of them, to me, are about how ordinary people can be driven to act in ways they would normally deplore.
You can say this after what happened to that kid only a few years back? The one that was dragged from the back of the truck?
I agree with that…I also don’t feel that gay cheating is on the same level. Yes, before anyone asks, I would hate it if I found out my SO was cheating with another man, but we’re talking about me looking into someone else’s life and not liking what they do but understanding. I wouldn’t like it if it were one of my friends either…tho In this day and age I would be more inclined to say - why didn’t you move to San Francisco? Or something?
Now, I wasn’t born yet, but I find it very hard to believe that it was socially impossible in 1964 (which must have been when Ennis got married) for a youngish man to be unmarried. We’re not talking about medieval times here, we’re talking the era of the sexual revolution.
I agree with that; Jack and Ennis acted like selfish jerks much of the time, even considering the raw deal they got from life. I just don’t necessarily see how that should have prevented you from enjoying the movie, unless you went in expecting a more conventional drama with “good guys” and “bad guys.”
He’s not talking about never getting married, though. He’s talking about the two of them living together.
And did your uncles live in that time and era?
I am sorry about the multiple posts, btw. It seems I have found another movie I simply love to discuss.
I kind of liked it but then I liked the old Alan Alda, Ellen Burstyn movie, Same Time, Next Year and changing it to bi-curious shepherds did it no harm at all. Although subtitles for Mr Ledger would have been handy.
Because their love story and its obstacles and basically exactly “the raw deal they got from life” was the point of the movie. If I dislike the guys, why care about that they don’t get to live their dream?
Look where they were living. The sexual revolution didn’t take place everywhere at the same time.
They were in an area and profession that traditionally demands men to be men (whatever that means).
Someone else can tell you the stats but gay men are still beaten and killed in 2006 in America.
Matthew Shepard! Was that his name?
Besides, as I said, it’s no skin off my back if you hate the film! But I have a hard time believing it’s so easy. It’s so easy to sit on a message board and say “better to do without true love” but personalities differ. I know that my greatest fear is being alone forever…I might do some pretty drastic things to not be alone, too.
But of course I agree with you the adultery was hurtful. And they should have stayed out of that trap…but we don’t always see that clearly. Ennis is faithful for four years until Jack shows up in his life again.
I didn’t like the Mexican prostitute thing, either though. Especially the way it was phrased…Jack says something like “What i can’t get from you, I get from them.” That reduces it to only gay sex in my mind. And I thought the point of the movie was they had more than just sex!
I doubt it would be just so simple as “just don’t get married”, because it isn’t that simple even now. Maybe they were deep in denial. Maybe they were desperate to be normal, to try anything to find that human connection. Maybe they thought it would be okay, somehow, if they just did it long enough. Maybe they truly wanted children, as many humans do, and let that urge blind them to the interpersonal issues. Maybe all kinds of things. They made mistakes, but those mistakes mostly came from their fear, pain, and confusion. Some came from their personalities, as well, sure. Maybe they are unlikeable guys. But I don’t think what they did was the same as, say, a guy screwing his secretary behind his wife’s back because he knows he can get away with it.
I’m not disputing any of this, but I am disputing that it was socially impossible for a youngish man to be single in that time and place. Not gay, just single.
Surely there must have been bachelors? There were bachelors in the 19th century and long before.
No one else is really explaining the why and the how of the missed point.
If the movie had been made with a straight couple Ennis and Jackie would have left the mountain, gotten married, and moved to her father’s farm, where they would have raised a bunch of kids and a bunch of cows and lived as happily as ranchers do when they’re always broke. No one would have cheated on anyone; no one would have gotten divorced; no one would have gotten killed; no one would have had to have spent the majority of his adult life separated from his beloved.
I don’t mind the bitching about the pace (even though I, personally, thought the movie was beautifully shot and perfectly reflected a slower, rural life) because that’s a matter of taste, and I too would’ve liked to have seen something along the lines of “Two Years Later” or “1971” at the bottom of the screen. I just don’t understand how someone could pull a Cat Ballou and miss not only the point but the entire side of the fucking barn.
Yes, they were in their forties in the 1960s. And they wouldn’t have had to live together necessarily, they could just get together sometimes. It would have been worth a shot.
I for one would be devastated if my SO left me for another man. It would be worse than if he cheated with another woman. Because you were never an object of sexual desire to him, you were just a way to deflect suspicion. I would much rather be a scorned woman than a beard. What they did was monstrous.
