I thought part of the point was also that both guys were deeply confused about that-- i.e., was it just a physical urge that they were fulfilling with each other because they couldn’t get it within their socially acceptable relationships, or was it that they truly loved each other and wanted to share their lives? ISTM that both characters spent much of the movie struggling to figure that out.
I don’t really know if they could have been single back then or what. What I do know is…my aunts were single for a long long time, and they’ve been in the country since the 1980’s and many people have wondered about them and a few nasty accusations have even been flung their way since they refused to get married. And that was in the last 20 years, in NY.
What I am entirely disputing is the fact that they could have lived together. And if they couldn’t even keep their hands off each other when married, how would they have when they were single?
And I haven’t said they could. Not that you said I said that, just pointing it out.
When they met, Ennis was already engaged to be married (date set, I believe). He was a cheater from the get-go.
Heh, it seems we are talking at cross-purposes. I don’t really think we disagree on the major issues, just one of us liked the film, the other didn’t. No harm no foul there.
Jules and Vincent KILL people in Pulp Fiction. That’s just plain wrong.
Does that make it a bad movie?
Who are you arguing with? Are there people in this thread who are saying that cheating on ones spouse is OK?
What about the fact that the guy who managed the ranch knew they were fucking and didn’t attack them or send anyone else to attack them? Was he just an aberration or did people sometimes turn a blind eye to what happened out there? Clearly he thought it was perverted but it didn’t send him into a murderous rage.
No, he just fired them, didn’t he? Or did he not give him another job at the end of the season? I can’t remember.
I think he just told them not to come back. I think I remember there being a vaguely threatening vibe to it, like, “I’m giving you one chance to leave town voluntarily, otherwise we’ll make you leave, and it won’t be pretty.”
He had a business to run. It was better to overlook the stemming of the rose (love that term) and keep the guys up there and just not hire them the next year. The thing he cared about most w/r/t their buggering was that nobody was watching the sheep.
Guys in town drinking in a bar might have another take on it.
Like what?
To the contrary, “Brokeback Mountain” was only a short story, first published in The New Yorker. The screenplay greatly expanded the story, fleshed out the characters, and introduced additional characters and scenes.
I think people sometimes just turned a blind eye to it. Not everyone is naturally a murderous person. Some people would pretend not to notice. Some people would just gossip. Depends on the community you’re in.
Anaamika, I think he basically fired them by bringing them back a month or so early, using the weather as an excuse. Then he refused to hire them back the next season.
No, it doesn’t make it a bad movie…but it’s a different kind of movie. I don’t think that you were meant to feel empathy for the characters in Pulp Fiction in quite the same way. In the interests of full disclosure, I have not seen Brokeback, but I will say that in general, I don’t like love stories where other people who did no wrong are hurt because of cheating…it causes me to lose empathy for the characters. How can I be so glad they found love, when they left destruction in their wake?
Rent it some time. 
You may or may not enjoy the film, but I think you’ll find that it doesn’t ask or expect the viewer to turn a blind eye to that destruction… It’s aiming for a more complex emotional response than simply being “glad they found love,” IMO.
You’re not supposed to feel “glad they found love.” It’s not that kind of movie. It’s more about how cultural and social pressures force their relationship to be what it is (furtive, secret, “shameful”) and forces them to live in fake marriages. The impact of the infidelity on the spouses is not sugar-coated, justified or apologized for. The story is tragic, not romantic. The pain that their relationship causes their spouses is part of the tragedy and they are shown as innocent victims. Once again, the story does not try to justify the infidelity. The problem is that they felt they had to marry women in the first place. One of the sad elements of the story is that these men really do love and care about their wives and kids (as an example, when Jack stands up to his father-in-law, he’s really standing up for his wife) but they just can’t be in love with women, no matter how much they want to and try to.
Incidentally, for most of their relationship, only one of them is married.
To give you an idea of how lousy a film Brokeback Mountain was, last weekend’s Another Gay Movie; (which spoofs American Pie with a quiche) was better.
**wm-- ** and Diogenes…both of your points well taken. This is why I caveated that I did not see the film (which I will do when it is convenient…I don’t go to see movies in the theater). I was not trying to dispute the OP, but actually just attempting to show Trunk why it’s troublesome to compare movies in two completely different genres, and judge them on the same criterion (likeability of characters). In some genres, it is much more important that the characters be sympathetic than in others. In stories about murderous gangsters, it is maybe not so vital that you sympathize with them. In stories about love, it’s maybe a little more so. Granted, this particular movie doesn’t really fit neatly into the “love” genre, but has a much deeper level than that, but still, I don’t think that comparing it to Pulp Fiction does either movie justice.
I understand that this movie just wouldn’t be the same at all if it featured a hetero couple, for the reasons **DtC ** points out.
However, the cynic in me says it never would have gotten so much hype if it had been the exact same movie, only with the sex implied, rather than showing a sex scene in the same manner as is accepted in movies with a heterosexual couple. Personally I thought it was pretty cool that they did give equal treatment in this manner, and it was pretty hot, even. But that doesn’t mean it was a great movie.
Like others, I lacked sympathy for the characters. There were so many other options than marrying women and cheating. I kept thinking at them: “Move to San Francisco and be happy together for Christ’s sake!” Or with some creative thinking, they could have stayed in the same region and profession, and lived together - say as bachelor cousins. It’s not like they were mincing around like Carson from *Queer Eye * and no one could miss that they were gay.
I should also say this. I agree from what I have heard about the movie that the thing we are supposed to be sympathetic to is that societal pressure causes pain to all of the people involved, and that it’s not so much a love story, but a tragedy of doomed relationships. Not having seen the movie, I can’t speak to whether or not it would come off that way to me, but I have noticed in hearing people talk about it, that this theme is not always picked up on by viewers. Don’t know if this is the fault of the film or the viewers, but there seems to be some disconnect there for a lot of people.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, not being a big fan of romance movies, and at this point the best masterpiece ever made could hardly live up to the hype. 
Enos’s father showed him first-hand what the result of that kind of “creative thinking” is.
You’re right about San Francisco, though. Plenty of job prospects for two cowhands there. Why didn’t they think of that?