I’ve been intrigued by dynamic “popular” lists for a while now. First it was BlogDex, then came Del.icio.us, and lately I’ve even been glancing at Technorati’s ‘Today’s Most Popular.
That said, I’ve noticed that on their popular movies page, Brokeback Mountain has been topping the list by over double the blog mentions for the past few days. I haven’t taken the time to discern whether a majority of these blogs are in favor of the movie or if they are recognizing it as propaganda, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents, regardless.
Actually, just about everything I want to say about this movie has been said by David Kupelian in his article ‘Brokeback Mountain’: Rape of the Marlboro Man. Please read this article in its entirety. In the meantime, here are some important excerpts:
“Brokeback Mountain,” the controversial “gay cowboy” film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.
And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the “Marlboro Man,” that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.
We all know the Marlboro Man. In “The Marketing of Evil,” I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes.
Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public’s mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women’s cigarette with the slogan “Mild as May”) into the world’s best-selling cigarette.
It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product’s actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people’s deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.
. . .
Yes, the talents of Hollywood’s finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis’s suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger’s performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis’s pain. Mission accomplished.
Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis’s suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in “Brokeback Mountain.”
What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It’s what they do for a living.
Here’s something I think we need to truly think about. Masterfully produced propaganda could serve to tie us emotionally to just about any behavior, no matter how deviant or gruesome.
Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to “Brokeback Mountain,” only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like “Brokeback,” it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we’re seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.
All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors’ powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two “lovers” are together – to bring us to a new level of “understanding” for any forbidden “love.” Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox “love” as Nazis or thugs.
It’s interesting to consider that even Jake Gyllenhaal was uncomfortable as an actor simulating homosexual sex with Heath Ledger.
I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f—in’ hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds.
The terms “homophobia” and “stereotype” have been used and overused to mask what’s really going on in the majority of American minds. It’s the truth, most people are innately uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. Period. Kupelian rightly asks, “Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn’t meant to cross. It’s called seduction.”
It’s truly scary to step back and observe how this works. Human beings innately react negatively to an unnatural situation or corrupt behavior. Yet, when such a situation is desirable for some, people must be coaxed into ignoring that natural reacton. How is that accomplished? The definition of what is “natural” is slowly changed, and what is correct is subtley transformed into “evil.” Then, opposition is easily painted as ignorance or bigotry or weakness.
As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans’ throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past “homophobia” – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.
If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in “Brokeback Mountain” – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.
Thanks David, you’re spot-on.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous Coward // Jan 24, 2006 at 7:21 pm
It’s the truth, most people are innately uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. Period.
I’d like to see proof on that. People are uncomfortable with homosexuality because we’ve been trained and threatened by hell fire that it’s bad. It’s a cultural thing, not an inate reaction. I’d like to see proof that people are naturally, genetically predispositioned to be uncomfortable with homosexual relationships.
Yet, when such a situation is desirable for some, people must be coaxed into ignoring that natural reacton. How is that accomplished? The definition of what is “natural” is slowly changed, and what is correct is subtley transformed into “evil.” Then, opposition is easily painted as ignorance or bigotry or weakness.
This goes both ways. Again, our culture dictates certain things and passes on certain information and codes of behaviour to future generations. Things change, but it’s a slow process. Traditionally our culture is one of homophobia. This has been changing. It’s just as easy to say that our culture transformed the norm of acceptance and disgregarded the natural status of innate behaviour by forcing and brainwashing people to believe that homosexuality is bad. Unless you are a geneticist and have found the ‘homosexuality abhorring gene’, then your arguement is based solely on your own opinion and is in no way a fact.
2 Lonnie Bruner // Jan 24, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Interesting assessments. Don’t really agree with them wholeheartedly, but it’s good that someone has done something other that heap lavish praise on that movie.
Here’s my take on it.
Cheers.
Lonnie Bruner
3 José // Jan 25, 2006 at 8:21 am
Now to really drop my two cents on the subject of Broke Back Mountain I personally went and saw the film and thus can actually give an informed opinion.
Many people will come and say that the movie has a theme that all men that go camping/fishing together all alone in some deserted mountain will cavort. I beg to differ, I think the true point of this film was to tell the story of the particular cowboys and not generalize all cowboys. Again, there were scenes of pain and daughters having to be taken away from their father whether or not the reasons for that were valid stands to be debated I mean seriously, what woman seeing her husband makin out with another man or person stays quiet about it, I mean duhhh, this is the point where you can ask/ yell and discuss what just happened not divorce the man and not give good reasons why
I don’t think the film dismissed the pain the divorce caused, if you pay attention you can see how all these events play a roll in how Heath’s character develops throughout.
The movie does shed light on homosexuality and homophobia but it is mostly a movie about lost gained and love lost and all the normal confusion that goes along with it and I think that’s a point that is lost on most people, it is a movie that reflects all aspects of our nature from love, confusion, hate, anger, sadness and courage.
It may offend some, it may delight others but it should be a movie that deserves respect for the masterful way in which it was shot, not overly graphic or preachy but humane enough for any one to see that this movie was really about two souls that found each other and their struggle to remain together.
4 Lisa // Jan 26, 2006 at 8:19 am
I only just came across your site, so I’ll have to take a deeper look to really get a feel for your views and opinions. But after reading this post, I wanted to point out something.
Kupelian says:
“Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis’s suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in “Brokeback Mountain.”"
What he fails to acknowledge it that integral part of moviemaking that makes all the difference in the story of any film. It’s called point of view. Brokeback is not Alma’s story. I agree that there are wives and children devestated by Ennis’s and Jack’s relationship, but that devestation is not what Annie Proulx wrote about in her original story (and I’m forced to ask if either you or he have taken the time to read the source material). Had Ang Lee and his writers chosen to express more of the heartbreak felt by Alma or Laureen, they would have told a completely different story. And I find it interesting that Kupelian uses “stoically” to describe Alma; how do we know it wasn’t insecurity or a lack of options that kept her with Ennis for so long and not some deep pride? Some might see her failure to mention what she saw as a weakness, the ensuing years of pain her own fault for not confronting things sooner.
As it stands, Brokeback is Jack and Ennis’s story; the rest of the characters purposefully left to the perimeters, and their scenes are only meant to reveal more about Jack or Ennis, not the supporting players. In telling a story, point of view is everything. Now that Brokeback is as popular as it is (for whatever reason) it would surely be up to any writer or filmmaker to turn the story on its head and show it to us from Alma’s, Laureen’s or their children’s point of views. In the meantime, the makers of Brokeback Mountain cannot be reviled for telling the story they set out to tell.
It’s obvious there is a very conservative lean to this post; as I mentioned earlier, I apologize that I haven’t looked farther into your site to know whether that is the theme of your entire blog or not. Regardless, I find it unfortunate that you and the article you chose to quote both failed to see the overlying message in Brokeback. It is a story of love, a love that ignites souls and lasts a lifetime. We can each only pray to be so lucky as to find such a love in our lifetimes.
5 Jacob // Jan 26, 2006 at 9:31 am
To Lisa: Thanks for commenting. Regarding your thoughts, I don’t believe your criticism of Kupelian’s article is valid. That is, Kupelian was not writing a review or critique of the film or the story. In fact, he praises the story-telling and moviemaking for what it is. However, the purpose of his article was to expose the reason that both Annie Proulx and Ang Lee chose to tell the story the way that did: to show a homosexual love affair in a way that makes it desireable, and to associate such behavior with an American legacy (cowboys).
No one is claiming that the story is poorly told or that the flim is poorly put together. That simply isn’t the case. The sad fact is, this great cinematic work is serving the purpose of propganda for the homosexual agenda, and I think I (and Kupelian) make that assertion abundantly clear. You’re right, there is a very conservative lean to this post, just as there is a very progressive lean to the movie. Thanks for reading. Discussion is always welcome.
6 Mandy // Jan 27, 2006 at 11:56 am
I think this is a great post. I haven’t seen the movie yet, and I only want to b/c every year I make an effort to see every movie that I think will be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.
Well done.
7 Future Geek // Jan 29, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Jacob,
Nice blog. I posted a reply to this here. I have edited my original response, but the gist is the same.
One point I didn’t make in my post - you say that we react negatively to things that are unnatural or corrupt. Would it then hold true that we react positively to things that are good? So what about premarital or extramarital sex? It sure does feel good, but it can have terrible consequences. Why don’t we react negatively to it?
8 Shinto // Apr 20, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Ahm the proof is everywhere in History and in Science. People are Born (programmed) with revulsion towards the unnatural. this is a fact. Do you see people enjoying the sight of defication? nope. The ones that do are into Scatology! yay a minor niche no different than Homosexuality. The fact is the disgust towards homosexual SEX is not social programming. Its an instinctual behaviour.
People don’t beat up gays cuz they were programmed by everyone to hate gays. no thats a COLLECTIVE response to a majority of people who have the instinctual disgust for homosexuals. We’re just born with it just as Gay people are born to be Gay.