"Brokeback Mountain:" An In A Word Review Of The Review Of "Brokeback Mountain"

My voyeurism into other people's sex lives only goes so far. In the case of the new movie, "Brokeback Mountain," the closest I will get to seeing it was Jeffery Bruner's review in Friday's Des Moines Register. And let me just say, even the review left me feeling a little dirty.

For a quick recap [for those of you living under a rock and unaware there is a new gay western], "Brokeback Mountain" is a film about cowboys that walk bow-legged, but it isn't from riding horses. This movie is the critic's darling. Every movie reviewer from Ebert to Maltin, have been falling over themselves to laud the greatness of man sex. However, for Jeffery Bruner is goes even deeper, consider these quotes:

"Lee's ability to transform Annie Proulx's short story into universal themes that render the issue of sexual preference moot is nothing short of remarkable."

"That's what makes "Brokeback Mountain" literary in a sense that this is a story told since Jane Austen and those before her. It just happens to involve two men."

Notice Bruner's use of the word, moot? According to Bruner this movie would still be the hot topic of conversation even without gay sex. Wrong. I haven't seen the movie and even I can tell this film exists to push the envelop of acceptability. In fact, I am sure Annie Proulx didn't just make the main characters cowboys just for the hell of it. She chose one of the most masculine professions for a reason.

Perhaps Bruner doesn't understand the meaning of the word, moot. Webster's definition of moot is to debate or discuss. However, I believe we can assume Bruner was using moot in the modern context of the word, meaning not important or irrelevant. So, after reading Bruner's review are we, the reader, to believe "Brokeback Mountain" is nothing more than a love story [and the fact that the lovers have two dicks has no bearing of on the plot]? I am to understand that the film doesn't discuss the fallout of the two men's actions on the characters around them? No. Even Bruner's own review of Brokeback Mountain tell us the film is about the cause and effect of fudge packin' on their lives.

The Bruner's review of "Brokeback Mountain" seems to fall victim to same the ideological catch-22 as homosexuality, it just doesn't make sense. Bruner can't even keep the over arching themes of "Brokeback Mountain" straight [pardon the pun] throughout out his review. Sometimes "Brokeback Mountain" is about gay relationships. Sometimes it is just a good old fashioned love story that could have been told by Jane Austen. However, no matter what the point of the film is, one thing is certain to Bruner, "Brokeback Mountain" is a great movie. Only the reason changes from paragraph to paragraph.

Before the flaming comments and emails start, let me say this: I believe life is short and as a whole sucks. Interacting daily with the drudge that is life [read: people, murder, child molestation, rape, lies, politicians, etc.], it is my belief you should do what makes you happy for the brief time you are on the is Earth. Obviously, that is preferenced by laws and the privacy of your own home. If want to put the stink on you man tool, so be it. Just don't throw it in my face and call it normal [editor note: the last sentence may have had an unintended double meaning, please disregard the sexual reference].

And I suppose that is my main complaint with "Brokeback Mountain" and its' reviews; the pressing need by the media and Hollywood to justify and make homosexuality acceptable and normal. Call me a bigot, if you will, but it will take more than a spaghetti western to make me believe nature intended for two men to have sex. I guess you can just chalk it up to being a conservative and closed minded, but not every deviance as to be society accepted. And deviance doesn't always have to win an Oscar.