Question about Brokeback Mountain
 

Ok, I don't really know how to ask this but are there any intimate scenes of Jake and Heath together? I'm not asking this for myself as I want to see the movie regardless. However, I may need to convince my homophobic friends. I'm trying hard not to offend but I don't know any other way to ask this.

Your <s>ignorant</s> homophobic friend will not like it. plain and simple. There is a lot of scenes of the two kissing, one scene were Jake's pants get pulled down and the grunts begin. A lot of cuddling shots.

If someone is homophobic they will really not be able to look past the basic idea of the love between these two characters to see what a great story it is.

Just because someone doesn't want to watch two guys making out/having sex makes them ignorant and/or homophobic??? -confused-

So is the mountain Heath's ass? And does Jake break Heath's back? Or is it the other way around?

Why do you have to convince them? Get new friends. :saber:

Sure .... in the same way that if I didn't want to watch a man and a woman making out, you could call me heterophobic. -wink-

just tell your friends to get a life....

no no no, being homophobic is ignorant.... not wanting to watch two guys make out is a preference.

Jim

Hi PopcornTreeCT, I'll add my voice to Jackskeleton's. Don't even bother. Doesn't sound like your friends can handle it. You'll be better off seeing it on your own. Maybe even make new friends along the way.

Are you kidding? Heath bottoming out for Jake? Give me a break. Of course it's the other way around.

This seems ripe for an Unrated/Extended DVD release... How about:

Brokeback Mountain: Bigger, Longer and Uncut Edition?

No, I think it means that person is not very mature. We're not talking about the latest Falcon video. I don't have any interest in watching straight porn, but I can handle watching Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Leave your friend at home watching the Playboy channel.

No piece - internet webboard thread or not - on "Brokeback Mountain" would be complete without a plug from Heath Ledger's publicist highlighting the fact that he met his current hetero-love on the set of that movie and has or is in the process of fathering a child with said love interest.

Gotta underline the hetero-ness of Heath in this thread or the symmetry with his recent grocery store checkout magazine rack puff pieces will be busted all to hell.

You gotta wonder about those Dawson Creeks girls.

Sounds like someone needs The Straight Dude's Guide to Brokeback Mountain...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10342237/

But seriously, there's no way of knowing if Ang Lee's approach to the love scenes will be too much for your straight friends or not. There's nothing very explicit, and the scenes are brief, but yes actual gay sex (gasp!) is implied.

And yes, anyone who avoids this movie--with a reputation for being one of the year's best--strictly because they "don't want to watch two guys making out" *is* by definition homophobic. Do you avoid any movie in which non-sexy people are in love? Elderly people? Fat people?

Narrow straight guys need to ask themselves 1) why their *ICK* factor is so much ridiculously higher for "two guys" than it is for anyone else they might not be personally attracted to... and 2) why they think that should control what movies are worth viewing? I mean, if film is *nothing* but eye-candy to you, then you should stick to the porn...

It's what society and upbringing tell you is exceptable. That's what the movie is about essentially. Conforming to what society says you should do.
Are "those guys" affraid that something might Move "down there" when they see it? Are they affraid it will change them?

To be fair to Ledger, this is his publicists doing. He scoffed in an interview in the newest Rolling Stone (with Kong on the cover) that this was intentional on his part. The interviewer also mentioned that his next role was Cassanova.

He's seemed pissed and annoyed and that he didn't really care what anyone thought about him. Seemed genuine to me, give the context of the rest of the interview.

:hscratch:

It's been awhile since I've seen ESOTSM, but I'm not seeing the connection...

I just gotta laugh at the responses here.... My God if you don't stand up and shout hallelujah in approval of what these characters are doing in a fictional story, than your nothing but an ignorant homophobe! Gotta love extremes.

Woah woah woah....Anne Hathoway gets topless?! I'm there! :rock:

You know what, take your friend to the movie, you might be underestimating him. and if not, maybe he will learn something about himself. What's the worst that could happen? (I guess he could take it as your way of telling him that you have a crush on him :) Honestly though, give your friend a chance...

I think what he is trying to say, and is mentioned in that Straight Guys guide to B.M. is that we sit through tons of Hetero romances and sex in movies year and year and that's fine so why can't a straight person go and see a movie with two men and not make such a big deal of it??

The problem with the word "homophobia" is that it doesn't allow for anything but full acceptance of homosexuality. According to Merriam Webster, even "aversion to" homosexuality is homophobic. So if you are one of those people who believes homosexuality is a sin and that it is correct to avoid talking to, associating with or even observing homosexuals or simulated homosexuality, then by definition you are a homophobe. You don't have to assault a homosexual, or join a hate group to be a homophobe. Just vocalize dislike for the lifestyle and you are in the homophobe club.

With that being said, I think the word "homophobe" is right up there with "racism" as one the most overused words in the english language. People resort to using it as an insult usually coupled with the word "ignorant" (keep in mind there are some very intelligent homophobes out there), and that is annoying.

And for the record, my wife and I don't mind the hot, sticky man-love. Though she does have a problem when I take too much of an interest in soft, gentle woman-on-woman action.

What about someone who is not afraid of talking to or associating with homosexuals but doesn't endorse their lifestyle? There is no phobia there, just dissaproval.

And yet, if someone feels religiously justified and correct in avoiding "talking to, associating with or even observing" say, blacks or jews... would you have a problem when they're called racists or bigots? Religious principles are great, but believing homosexuality is a sin does *not* give one the right to treat gay people as inferior in a social or political context. The sad and disgusting fact that gay inferiority is now enshrined in 20+ state constitutions--and growing-- is a testament to the extent religious bigotry is enshrined in the American mind, and how hollow the American ideals of justice and equality have become in comparison.

Yes, that is essentially what I was saying. Don't even bother feeding Artman, though.