March 05, 2006

Less Sheep, More Hot Gay Sex

That's what the flaming heterosexual Matthew Yglesias thinks Brokeback Mountain really needed. I'd say he's probably right. If such a deeply passionate movie about impossible longing were made about a couple of heterosexuals, the sex would have likely be veritably dripping off the screen. But he's also probably right about why we got more sheep instead. And I can't say I mind that much. It's still an extremely well-made and moving film. And I'll be pulling for it to win lots of Oscars tonight.

Actually of the 6 awards I'd most like to see go to my favorites tonight, 5 are associated with Brokeback Mountain.

Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Score & Director - Brokeback Mountain.

Best Supporting Actor - Jake Gyllenhaal of Brokeback Mounatin.

Best Supporting Actress - Amy Adams of Junebug.

What/whom are you going to be pulling for?

Posted by armand at March 5, 2006 01:58 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Movies


Comments

Oh you of the funny titles.

Posted by: binky at March 5, 2006 02:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm just borrowing Matt's words - if making the funniest title possible was the goal I could have done better (I mean c'mon - with "sheep" and "gay sex" to work with ....).

Posted by: Armand at March 5, 2006 07:14 PM | PERMALINK

So I've only visited two blogs other than ours this morning - and I see that both Dan Drezner and Scott Lemieux have used "didactic" to describe the Best Picture winner, Crash. Lemieux also used "jejune".

At least I'm not alone in being appalled.

Posted by: Armand at March 6, 2006 09:08 AM | PERMALINK

You're not alone. I think the choice confirms almost everyone's worst preconceptions about the Academy.

Posted by: jacflash at March 6, 2006 09:26 AM | PERMALINK

finally say brokeback mountain last night, and i have a few thoughts. i certainly thought the movie was beautiful, but even this post didn't prepare me for just how little risque material there was, and that, in my view, jack in the backseat with lurraine was half of it. i just kept thinking: this is what people are all worked up about? six feet under was consistently more daring on the hot gay sex front in every possible way for the duration of its run.

the superficially most controversial aspects of this film, for my money, were the topless sex scenes by two of america's teen princesses? of course, the real controversy is in the portrayal and validation of a complex psychosexual bond between men.

i thought the movie was pretty, the direction stunning, and the performances all very good. i don't think i liked JG's performance enough to argue for best supporting, but of course that's academic now. heath aged more convincingly.

williams' performance was pretty impressive.

Posted by: moon at March 8, 2006 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Well, part of why I wanted Jake to win is certainly wrapped up in me wanting this very good film to be honored, and I really like Jake. While they weren't my top choices I'm quite happy to see Clooney and Weisz get their little gold guys - both were quite good too.

The more I think about it, I can't recall anything in the way of man on man action in Brokeback aside from a few dark seconds on that first night they sleep together. If there was more than that to the sexuality, I've forgotten about it. But then apparently I've also forgotten about the explicitness of Six Feet Under on that front. That doesn't ring a bell (though perhaps I've blocked it out since David's character was by far the least interesting in that family).

But of course this is why I'm really annoyed Brokeback lost, if that loss had something to do with its "gayness" (something that a lot of Hollywood gossips believe to be the case). That's bad - but it's doubly bad in that the point of Brokeback wasn't anything very gay. It was about love denied, loss, living with the choices we make - much bigger things than exactly who's fumbling around with whom in a tent on a winter night in Wyoming.

Posted by: Armand at March 8, 2006 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

and even if it was gay, and i agree with your points to the contrary, obviously this year's oscars were all about topicality, i don't see why it didn't win. too bad they gave best picture to the movie that presented its topic hollowly and implausibly and with very little art save the solid performances instead of giving it to the movie that presented its topic maturely and credibly and with a great deal of laudable art in its execution.

as for SFU, i meant relatively -- it's still nothing like straight sex in mainstream entertainment, but the kissing and fondling and laying on top of each other level at which the gays in SFU are allowed to operate is far gratuitous than anything in brokeback.

Posted by: moon at March 8, 2006 01:34 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?