Heartbreaking Honesty - "Brokeback Mountain" Review

Throughout my life, the film "Brokeback Mountain" was always treated like a joke. It was always seen as that silly, funny movie about two gay cowboys. There was an underlying sense of disgust and mockery in just about everything I heard about the film. When I was less educated and open about the LGBT community as a kid, I bought into the homophobic hype a bit, and always just assumed that the movie wasn't good. I gave the movie a watch for the first time, and as an adult, fierce advocate of the LGBT community today, I can happily say that "Brokeback Mountain" is a downright incredible film, rife with honest and realistic heartbreak and beauty.

The film stars Heath Ledger as Ennis, and Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack, two men who stumble upon sexual advances after meeting during a mutual gig herding sheep. Eventually, the two men part ways after this summer of confusing love and lust, and go back to seemingly heteronormative lives. However, the rest of the movie shows that these lives lived away from each other only work so well; the two manage to get away from their wives for time with each other.

There is some debate as to exactly what sexual orientations Ennis and Jack fall into, but that debate is hardly relevant in regards to the quality of the film. Neither character identifies as anything and have sexual relationships with both genders to varying degrees of intimacy, making it hard to confidently apply a specific label. The horrifically homophobic times the two live in make it difficult to effectively explore their sexualities and come to a proper identity, thusly creating ambiguity for them and the viewer. What isn't ambiguous is that the two men are in love with each other, and that they can't embrace that love because of the hyper-masculine and massively intolerant society they are a part of. 

Ennis and Jack's love is done without Romanticism, and works perfectly in its own way. This is not a romance film filled with astounding, glorious choruses to particularly strong scenes, or anything like that. Every powerful bit of affection is a struggle that lasts for only so long. The relationship of these two men is not always pretty; in fact, it is often quite ugly. The atmosphere of hatred towards homosexuality is shown most directly when Ennis tells a harrowing story from his childhood about his bigoted father, and bleeds into the whole film. 

The two characters themselves are fleshed out and fascinating, aided by the great acting of Ledger and Gyllenhaal. The supporting cast is also great, with folks like Michelle Williams playing Ledger's chief female love interest, and Anne Hathaway playing that of Gyllenhaal. The movie is well-written, but simple pieces of performance go such a long way. Often times, body language and facial expression manage to get across more than words in "Brokeback Mountain," making the most intense and important scenes all the better. 

The titular Brokeback Mountain serves as simple symbolism, representing the unbridled comfort in being who they really want to be: in love with each other. I appreciate a film that is willing to reject the American norm and do a bleak ending, and that is exactly what "Brokeback Mountain" does. There is no happy ending to this same-sex romance, showing the realistic nature of such a relationship in this time period. The movie embodies the exact, hazy mixture of euphoria and confusion that LGBT people have historically lived with and continue to live with today. 

A Perspective on the Morgan/Mock Debacle

I really do like Piers Morgan. I think he can be prudish, dismissive, and embarrassingly ill-tempered, but I really do like Piers Morgan. He seems like a well-intentioned, passionate, and generally kind person. I especially admire his strong passion for gun control advocacy, even though I have issues with some of his approach on that issue.

Whenever I saw this tweet, I was puzzled:

What did I miss? I thought. Don't tell me he's transphobic...

And then I saw this tweet:

Oh boy. Is he joking or is this for real? What the heck happened?

Eventually, I got myself educated on this controversy Morgan had stumbled into. Janet Mock, a trans woman and trans rights advocate, was recently on his CNN show to discuss her new book Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More. His interview was very supportive of her and her cause, and the two had a friendly discourse about mostly her growth to her current state as a fully-transitioned woman.

It turns out, this exchange of their's caused some controversy; most notably from Mock herself in these tweets:

After the drama on Twitter, Mock was invited back on the show by a disgruntled and slightly vindictive Piers Morgan:

"I'll deal with you." Yeesh.

You can watch the videos here and here to catch up for yourself if you are not already caught up.

Overall, I'm very disappointed by Piers Morgan. My central problem with how he handled himself is that he did so very much in a fashion that showed much more concern for saving face than actually caring for the struggles of the trans community. He brought up his support of the gay community, as if that somehow gives him a pass on offending a different group of people. He brought up an old article in which she seemingly labels and characterizes herself just as he did, when in actuality, that article wasn't something she was responsible for, as she wrote about at the very beginning of her book, according to her.

It seems very obvious to me that he made a mistake when describing her life, and is too obsessed with maintaining his righteous self-image to admit to his mistake. He's missing the distinction between gender, something very nuanced, and sex. It's not appropriate to call her "formally a man" and "born a boy" because ever since she was able to fathom such a thing, she didn't identify as a boy, despite her sex and assigned gender.

She also makes the point that focusing on her transition in relation to her very committed relationship with her boyfriend "sensationalizes" her life history in a way that cheapens the struggles of the trans community. While I don't blame Piers for spending a lot of time on this, because it is very interesting and new to so many people, I certainly get her point. Framing this as her being a "former man" certainly takes that discussion to a bad place, and there are a lot of meatier, larger issues that could have been discussed. For example, check out these statistics in this screen cap from a "Pantheos" article:

Piers Morgan's main critique of Mock seemed to be that she did not call him out and correct him for his apparent mistake, to which she replied that sure, she probably should have, but that she didn't because she was afraid. I think this fear is obviously understandable. If this fear wasn't understandable, the argument between the two over Morgan's [mis]representation of trans people wouldn't have happened.

Janet Mock came off as a coolly intelligent and warm woman. She didn't handle the situation absolutely perfectly, but her failings were not only understandable, she also personally admitted them. 

With all of that being said, one of the main reasons I found this controversy so fascinating was that I really identified and sympathized with Piers on an emotional level. I identified and sympathized with him not because I feel I would have also misrepresented trans people in an offensive manor (although, to be clear, I would be open to the possibility of this article showing some kind of ignorance on my part), but generally because I could picture myself putting my foot in my mouth in a similar way. 

I sometimes say things that are ignorant, or offensive, and my ignorance/offensiveness should be apparent to me. But it isn't, because of a kind of worried attempt on my part to make myself seem morally and intellectually righteous at all times. It can be tough to admit you screwed up.

I really think I know the mental process he went through when the controversy started on twitter. The rapid dash for sources and arguments backing up his claim that were attractive for simply confirming his opinion rather than for their credibility, as her counter-argument in the second interview showed; the bringing up of other, clear moments of moral/intellectual righteousness, that really aren't relevant but absolutely are to him, in his deluded state of mind; etc. He just knew he was in the right, because he just knows he's a good, smart guy. 

I get it. I feel bad for him. He made an unfortunate, offensive mistake in discussing a complex issue. While labeling him transphobic may be a stretch, he's in the wrong here, folks. I only wish that he quits being bullheaded and admits that he goofed.