I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain. I don’t plan to see it.
It’s no seceret that I don’t particularly care for movies or books with characters who largely do nothing but run around being homosexual. It just doesn’t strike me as a particularly interesting plot.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for homosexual characters in movies. I just prefer that they be homosexual characters who actually do something, preferably something interesting, or at least have some interesting characteristics. The mere presence of homosexuality does not make for a sufficiently compelling character or plot — nor human being, for that matter. Unless the movie in question is a porn flick, there has to be something more going on than sexual orientation.
OK, you say. The scenery in Brokeback is “breathtaking” and the characters are cowboys (or sheepherders or whatever) so that means they’re doing something interesting, right? Well, no. I can’t imagine anything much more boring than watching two people roaming about the wilderness of Wyoming (or Montana or wherever), no matter what they’re doing.
I’ve never had cowboy fantasies, and I don’t “do” nature. In fact, I avoid the great American widerness like the plague. I’m only impressed by man-made environments, mainly because natural ones happened completely by chance, with no artistry nor effort involved. If I were offered the choice on a game show, I’d take the free night in Albuquerque over the free week at the Grand Canyon every time. And I don’t even like Albuquerque that much.
I’d much rather see a movie about homosexual accountants and urban planners — both of which I find far sexier and more interesting than cowboys — but even then, I’d only shell out my eight bucks if I knew they were going to do something remarkable or go someplace I cared about.
It’s a personal bias, granted, but that’s my whole point. The fact that this particular movie is about two homosexuals does not negate the fact that it’s about two homosexuals in a situation that I find unspeakably boring. The faggotry is just no pull for me, and no amount of propaganda about how goddamned “groundbreaking” the film is will change that. And I’m really annoyed by any suggestion that I “need” to see it.
I submit for your approval Transamerica. I imagine it’s not the greatest movie ever made either, although I sense it’s a touch more “groundbreaking” than Brokeback will ever be. I’m almost 100% certain, however, it would be much more to my taste than Brokeback because ultimately it’s a road movie with an urban setting and a sense of humor. In other words, a movie where something that interests and amuses me might actually happen.
That “something interesting” is why I go to see movies: not for some notion of “showing my support for the community” or whatever. What community would I be supporting by seeing Brokeback, anyway? The community of closeted cowboys in Montana?
Blecch. If you want a good latter-day cowboy movie, check out Hud. It has a great plot, Patricia Neal, and one of the best denim-clad asses I’ve ever seen in a pre-1970s movie…
