Brokeback Mountain and Crash
March 3, 2007 by thinking girl
So, I watched both of these movies today, for the second time. I saw both in theatres when they first came out, but not again since. I was left with very different impressions the second time around.
Brokeback Mountain - so, check it out. What I think I missed about this movie before was the complexity of the sexual identities of the two characters. I was kind of hung up on thinking of the story as one about two gay men who couldn’t really be out because of time and place, beautiful unrequited love! (I am such a sappy romantic!) And, after Jack and Ennis’ first sexual encounter, I thought to myself, well, now they’re gay! It seemed to me that was what the filmmakers wanted me to think, anyway.
But that isn’t really the entirety of what was going on. Both men went on to hetero marriages, had children, and continued their affair. Jack was unsatisfied with their arrangement, and sought out other same-sex affairs, and also mentioned an affair with another woman. but, it seemed like the emphasis in the film was on Jack as being “more” homosexual than Ennis, based on the facts that he initiated the affair with Ennis, and that Jack had more same-sex partners than Ennis, who only had Jack, and that Jack was the bottom in their relationship, a classic move in determining which partner is “gayer” than the other (the one doing the penetrating has historically not been seen as necessarily gay; the one being penetrated is usually seen as the one that is “truly” gay). I dunno - seems like too simplistic an analysis. Seems like Jack just got around more than ol’ Ennis did - with both men and women.
And, what’s up with that initial moment, the “they turned gay” moment? I felt so weirded out with that whole thing - like that initial sexual encounter was enough to negate their entire previous lives as heterosexuals? That it revealed the “truth” about them, that was lying dormant all those years until then? How do we define sexuality - by acts, by desires, by identifications? By acts, both men were bisexual. By desires, Jack seems more bi than gay, but Ennis seems more gay than bi. By identifications, well, Ennis explicitly told Jack, “I’m not queer” and Jack said, “Neither am I,” so I guess both identified as hetero (seeing as that’s the only other option presented) - but that seemed like the line was there for the audience to go, “yeah, right!” and it was early on, not after 20 years or so of fishing trips together. nevertheless, they both still led lives that were largely presented to the world as het.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see it now, because I tended at the time I saw it first to think about sexuality in more rigidly defined terms. Now, I think of sexuality as something that’s more fluid, and not necessarily innately determined but also socially determined in lots of ways. The film seemed to me to be presenting the sexuality of the characters in harsh juxtaposition with their social and historical context - and I can’t help but wonder, if the story was told in the historical context of this decade, would things have ended up the same? I think not - more support for and within the gay community might have led to the two of them shacking up or getting married, and identifying themselves as gay, and having very different lives.
Anyway, I got the distinct impression that the idea was we were supposed to think of these men as sexually homosexual, and that “truth” about them was interacting at odds with their social contexts. But the more subtle message, I think, is that historical and social contexts actually work to shape and produce sexuality in significant and meaningful ways, and that placing sexuality at the centre of one’s identity does not make for a stable and homogenous “truth” about a person or his/her experiences. This time, I didn’t miss that message. (thanks, Foucault!)
Best Line: Jack, to Ennis: “I wish I knew how to quit you!”
Crash - the first time I saw this, I liked it. I thought it was an important kind of movie to make, to examine racial tension among various communities. This time, I felt differently. It made me mad.
Make TG Mad #1: the scene where Thandi Newton got felt up by Matt Dillon the cop while her husband Terrence Howard watched helplessly and Ryan Phillippe the other cop did nothing. White cop molests woman of colour while man of colour is powerless to stop it and other white cop watches uncomfortably but yet doesn’t question the power hierarchy.
I was so mad about this scene. Then, the next scene where Thandi Newton and Terrence Howard are at home arguing about what happened, and then when she went to see him at work the next day. Thandi kept saying things like, “why didn’t you do anything?” and Terrence kept saying things like “what was I supposed to do, he’s a cop?” So frustrating. Thandi’s character, in addition to being victimized by white male supremacy in the embodiment of Matt Dillon, was vascillating between blaming her husband for not taking better care of his stuff (her) and feeling bad for Terrence for being so emasculated. Traditional Gender Stereotpye 1: Woman Needs Man to Defend Her and Traditional Gender Stereotype 2: Man Must Defend Woman Or He Isn’t Really a Man were definitely upheld here.
What I thought they did a good job of was treating gender and race coherently. Matt Dillon felt Thandi Newton up not just because she was a woman, but because she was a woman of colour and because her husband was a man of colour. He wasn’t aiming just to hurt her, but also to hurt him through his objectification and subsequent use of her.
Made TG Mad #2: Thandi Newton is trapped in her truck after it flips and she can’t get out. Matt Dillon the cop who molested her the night before comes to her rescue and pulls her out.
Fuck this scene made me MAD! Now, this woman of colour who has been abused and victimized by this very same white cop has to rely on him to help her, to save her life. And he has the nerve to say to her, “I’m not going to fucking hurt you!” NEWSFLASH: he already did! And so, the woman of colour has to put her trust back in the very same white man who just finished molesting her, telling her what her value and worth and place was, and not just for her own knowledge, but for the emasculation of her husband, so he also could know his value and worth and place: look how powerful I am, I can finger your pretty black wife and you can’t do a damn thing about it but offer her up and apologize for taking too long doing it. And isn’t this pretty much how our social systems treat women of colour everyday? Let me show you how little you’re valued, and how mighty we are, and exactly how much you need and require and rely on us for the very air you breathe. You exist within our framework, our hierarchy of power, but you can’t participate in it.
Made TG Mad #3: Don Cheadle goes to see the DA about a case he’s working on where a white cop shot and killed a black cop (neither knew the other was undercover, I think). Anyway, the guy he talked to, who is the creepy guy who was on that show about the aliens and now he’s on Prison Break with the icy blue creepy eyes and the kind of blondish hair, kept on about “fucking black people” and how they can’t keep from robbing and killing each other and whatnot, in order to extract from Don Cheadle what he wants, which is something to do with the case but he brings up his little deliquent brother and throws him into the mix for further extortionary purposes.
So, what pissed me off here, aside from the references by a white man to a black man about “fucking black people” was the damn system, putting Don Cheadle in the middle of white men’s manipulations. That’s about all I can say about that, it was a really kind of general feeling of anger that scene generated, I’d have to go back and watch it again to get the full feeling.
There are a hundred other little and big moments in the film that pissed me off. But what kind of pissed me off the most was that this is a movie that is ultimately supposed to make white people feel good about opposing racism. Like identifying and opposing obvious cases of racism makes a white person not racist. Such a surface analysis of racism.
Best Dialogue (paraphrased):
Don Cheadle, on the phone with his mother, which he answered while in the middle of sex with Jennifer Esposito: “Mom, I can’t talk right now, I’m having sex with a white woman.” To JE: “Where were we?”
JE: “I was white, and you were jerking off in the shower,” pushes him off and proceeds to get dressed.
DC: “I’m sorry, I would have told her I was fucking a Mexican woman, but it wouldn’t have made her as mad.”
JE: “Here’s a geography lesson - my father is from Puerto Rico, my mother is from El Salvador. Neither of which is Mexico.”
Finally, someone making a critical contribution to the blogosphere. I shall trackback from my own site on this post!
I’m adding this site to my blogroll!
thanks Robyn - glad to have your support!
i havent seen brokeback mountain so i can’t comment on it but as for crash — i have an almost love/hate relationship with that film.
i definitely think they could have fleshed out thandie newton’s character a bit more. she is a black woman but the film for me would have skyrocketed if they touched on the nuances of colorism within the black community, ie, her and terrence howard are both light skinned and the devil’s advocate in me wonders ”is that why they go to so far”?
however, i love your discourse and those scenes that you mentioned were so powerful. you are completely right: terrence howard was being made to feel like a slave seeing his wife emotionally raped and he couldn’t do anything about it to alleviate the pain.
do you remember the bit where matt dillon calls up the government agency and makes fun of the woman’s name? i think that too touches on steretotypes and how they are embodied in us.
Like you, my second viewing of “Brokeback Mountain” was more enriching than the first. The first thing I noticed (after thinking, “hey, did the video store last time actually edit the movie?”
was how much more fluid the men’s sexuality seemed. They didn’t seem to be simply gay men living straight lives, they were living gay lives and straight lives in tandem. The second thing I noticed was that the movie is fairly hostile toward the female characters. What thankless roles for the actresses! They seemed to symbolize the conventional social and gender roles that “trapped” these men not just as homosexuals but as free and natural individuals. The third thing that I noticed was that Ennis seemed emotionally unavailable to either Jack or his wife or even his daughters. All of the other characters who cared for him had to go to him for any interaction. He could only express deep emotion when alone.
Anyway, what a great analysis you have given of both movies. Aspazia at Mad Melancholic Feminista directed me this way. I must add you to my blog roll.
Haha…agreed on the favourite quotes bit for Crash. I too had a second opinion after watching it a few times.
Do some of the portrayals of racism in the movie make you mad because you think they accurately represent some people’s opinions and actions? Or is it something about the way the movie itself presents them?
As far as the white cop rescuing the black woman after molesting her, that too made me angry but I can view it two ways: one, that he somehow compensates for his sexual abuse by saving her life (white man to the rescue again, thanks Hollywood.). Two, I found that scene very powerful because the woman is in a burning car and she still does not trust him enough to let him rescue her. I guess I found that one way to interpret that scene is that the cop is finally shown the gravity of treating women that way-that it is a serious violation of their safety that for some, is on the same scale as a life-and-death issue. Some of the looks of surprise and what I saw as vulnerability in the cop’s face as he was trying to save her are what make me think it could have been intended that way.
I do not know which of the two interpretations were intended by the directors, but I just think there are two very different ways of looking at it.
heyAulelia - yes, love/hate relationship with Crash, exactly how I feel. And I agree, some colourism would have been good to represent - there was a moment where Thandi Newton referred to her light skin when she was mouthing off to Matt Dillon. I also liked the scene where Terrence was at work and Tony Danza complained that the black actor wasn’t talking “black” enough and wanted to reshoot the scene - Terrence said something like “what, the audience isn’t going to recognize him as a black man?” That was great - the discomfort white folks can feel about POC being educated and articulate and stepping outside the little black box they want to put them in.
I do remember that scene, where Matt Dillon made fun of the woman’s name - obviously he was uncomfortable with a black woman holding power in his life. Not used to that!
Clio - thanks for your comment! glad you found your way here.
yes, exactly, the fluidity of their sexual identities really came out with a second viewing. maybe I had to get past some of the political hype and whatnot around the movie being a “gay” movie - it really wasn’t, more than anything it was a movie about the fluidity of human sexuality and love.
Definitely thankless roles for the female actors, who all did such a great job, especially Michelle Williams I thought. I thought the scene where Anne Hathaway was on the phone with Ennis after Jack died was really interesting, and somewhat confusing - did she know about Jack’s other partners, had she figured out that Jack and Ennis were lovers? Interesting how she got blonder and blonder as she aged in the film too. and great point about Ennis not being emotionally available to anyone.
much richer film the second time.
Rainbow Girl - it’s something about how the movie presents these instances of racism that bothers me. It just seems to me like the movie was made from a white liberal perspective and for a white liberal audience, you know? There’s something missing somehow… I can’t put my finger on it, but it was maddening. I think it’s that they are presented AS INSTANCES of racism, without the deeper analysis that racism is much more than individual acts of discrimination, committed by individual racist people. I mean, it shows that racism is everywhere, but it doesn’t go deeper than that. And the one character who was speaking the most truth about race, Ludacris’ character, was presented as a militant young black man who was also living up to stereotypes of young black men by being a criminal.
yeah, I hated the white man to the rescue deal - the power invested in Matt Dillon’s character as a representation of white power (esp. governmental) was really cogent I though. He had the power to molest Thandi Newton, as well as to save her, and it’s his own whim as to which he would do. And the complexity of his character, too, with the sick father he was caring for at home, was interesting - lesson for me there was that nobody is all good or all bad, you know?
I agree, there is a second point with that scene - it was the opportunity for Matt Dillon to have a turning point in his life. we’ll never know if he took it.
I found Crash to be a very vapid and manipulative movie despite it’s pretence to social relevance. It baffles me that people fall for its gimmicks.
It pretends to be making statements about social issues, but that was just a facade for a flip-flop formula to work the audience emotionally. The formula is simple: show a good person, then make them bad; show a bad person, then make them good. All this while pushing the issue buttons.
I saw the Matt Dillon rapist/hero flip-flop coming a mile off, and I feel contempt for the filmmakers for having stooped so low. It was pure formual - there was nothing sincere in it.
Overall, Crash was a totally contrived movie that had not the least jot of honesty in it’s representation of social issues.
Yes, Thandi’s character seemed torn between being a strong woman chastizing her man, and being rescued all the time. I used that movie in class to open up discrimination discussions. I think there are strong women out there who do sometimes look to men to intervene, ehem*me*cough. So it’s very useful for that, even if it’s infuriating.
As for Brokeback, I thought the first sexual encounter a bit to quick. I’m not a gay man, but it seemed unrealistic to me to go from lying side by each to spontaneous, unlubed, anal sex.
But that movie gets me in tears every time. It’s the life unlived that gets me. I don’t care if they’re gay; I’m pissed off that Ennis lived a lie and never had the balls to live an authentic existence. Granted it would take some massive ball in that time and place, but to me, it sure beats the alternative.
Ptarmigan - CONTRIVED!!! yes, that is exactly the word I was looking for to describe what I thought was just white liberal “look at us, we know that being racist is bad and we’ve transcended” mentality.
Sage - I wish I had a teacher like you in high school!
I thought the Brokeback love scene was way too quick too, and also questioned the lack of lube. Not so realistic, but then again, it is Hollywood.
Yeah, the unlived life. And that damn bloody shirt at the end. it gets me!
I am inclined to agree with your second readings of both movies–and I also think that the fact you have two readings demonstrates the very calculated ambiguity in each.
I was moved by Crash and forced to adjust and reconsider some of my thinking about race–which I actually consider and revise nearly every day, but if Crash can be a catalyst for that, good. It is a thoughtful film–I agree with Rainbow Girls’ reading of the white-cop-saves-black-woman scene to some extent. The trouble is that a great deal of thought went into how to make it a blockbuster–and a mainstream Hollywood film has to reify white male power structures like a sonnet has to have fourteen lines. You might read the great symbolic resolution–bratty Sandra Bullock hugging her hispanic maid–as a white woman’s tragic/heroic realization that race does not determine friend or enemy, but you can also compare that pair to countless other colored-help-patiently-supporting-helpless-Scarlett O’Hara scenarios in film and literature, and see zero progress whatsoever. See, ambiguous.
Crash could be useful if it came with a reading guide–otherwise, it’s too easy to believe in the we-shall-overcome veneer of the film, and it would be really excellent if this set of “instances” of racism (I liked that) could be used as a teaching tool.
Thanks for the comment, Tanglethis, and for visiting! I agree, you said it well, what bothered me about the film:
Also re: the Sandra Bullock character, that was another bit that bugged me. She was so touched to find that her best friend was her hispanic maid, but yet all I could say to myself was, “how does the maid feel?” I would bet she certainly doesn’t see herself as any kind of friend to Sandra Bullock.