Brokeback Mountain: The Portrayal of LGBT Relations in the Story

Born from years of observation and a heavy dose of imagination, Brokeback Mountain is the acclaimed short story that would go on to spark countless conversations. It has wiggled its way into the thoughts of a multitude of people, old and young and those yet to come. First published in 1997 in the New Yorker, Annie Proulx wrote Brokeback Mountain in an attempt to understand all that she had seen and wondered within the context of Western America. It was later expanded and re-released in 1999 bound within a collection of other stories, titled Close Range: Wyoming Stories. When asked what compelled her to write the sixty-four page story, Proulx explained that the idea sparked while she was visiting a bar in Wyoming. “There was the smell of sex in the air,” Proulx remembers. “But there was this old shabby-looking guy watching the guys playing pool. He had a raw hunger in his eyes that made me wonder if he were country gay. I wondered, ‘What would’ve he been like when he was younger?’ Then he disappeared, and in his place appeared Ennis. And then Jack. You can’t have Ennis without Jack” (Barrie-Anthony, 2005). The short story was read and widely lauded and among the array of admirers were Diana Ossana and Larry McMurtry, who decided to write a screenplay. Thus bringing the story of Ennis and Jack further into the public consciousness. It was clear early on that the story of Brokeback Mountain, and what it represents, would have an integral place in the world’s cultural foundation and social growth.

To understand the societal impact of such a story like Brokeback Mountain, one must understand the social and political climate of the time. The level of homophobia within the US was such that in 2004, “64% of Americans did not support equal marriage rights for gay men or lesbians” (Baunach, 347). It was only in 2003 that the Supreme Court did rule in favour of decriminalizing homosexual sex. George W. Bush gave an address in February of 2004 on the supposed sanctity of marriage, roughly two years before Brokeback Mountain would be released theatrically. In his speech Bush stated, “Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all” (Bush, 2004). Measures were being taken to change the US into a more equal country, however due to America’s largely Christian-based bedrock for morality, that progress was stunted. There would always be opposition against homosexuality and that refusal to accept diversity would continue to be a set back for films such as Brokeback Mountain being made.

The history of Hollywood’s censorship dates back to 1915, after the Supreme Court decreed that films were not to be seen as the various voices of the people (i.e. freedom of speech) but were instead a business. Therefore in order to succeed as a business, the film industry needed to be sure they were projecting a united front and sending the right messages. In 1934, Joseph Breen, the head of the Hays Office (known also as the Production Code Administration), applied himself to the handling of the Production Code. The foundation of the Code was simple, in that “[n]o picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin.” (Noriega) What is particularly striking about the Production Code was just how long it continued to censor homosexual content, which was never outright named as such and instead classified as “sex perversion”. The censorship of homosexual content lasted until 1961, even though the system of the Production Code had already begun to fall in the mid-1950s. It was this show of extended control that created the gap between the so-called wrong that was normalized into acceptable versus that which remained unspeakable and consequently unknowable and therefore, disturbing.

By the time the restriction on homosexual content melted away, the stigma of homosexuality had already rooted its place in the hearts and minds of the people. Controversial topics of old like adultery, divorce, criminality, and other forms of traditional immorality enjoyed a more relaxed reception, whereas homosexual content (and by extension, people), continued to be treated with disgust and dehumanization. “The laws (and public perception) that mere exposure to isolated passages about homosexuality could ‘deprave and corrupt’ were just beginning to change for printed material” (Noriega). With that in mind, it comes as no surprise that sympathetic homosexual portrayals in film were practically unheard of. The mere act of neglecting to properly name that which was being banned furthered the divide between the homosexual and what was seen as normal. What remained of the Production Code was a mangled sense of right and wrong. That, while there could be homosexual characters portrayed in film, they must be punished for it. The audience could not be led to believe that anything other than misfortune followed homosexuality (Bermudez, 5).

It was not just within the confines of film that homosexual behaviour was punished. There was, and continues to be, stigma that follows people who portray LGBT characters. It was this stigma, this fear of a ruined reputation and career, that helped to hinder the production of Brokeback Mountain. (Bermudez, 55). In addition to that, production was felt cursed due to the majority opinion that Ossana and McMurtry’s screenplay was another one of “Hollywood’s great unproduced screenplays” and as such unproducable (Bermudez, 22). However, it was the consummation of Ennis’ and Jack’s relationship that was the greatest hurdle. It did not matter that sex between a man and woman had been shown in cinema already. The explicit acknowledgement of homosexual sex was the bear no one wanted to poke, and certainly not with any morsel of compassion or relatability.

In spite of all this, Brokeback Mountain’s handling of the AIDS crisis, or rather lack of, was a refreshing change of pace. It worked to change the cultural perspective of LGBT as being diseased or otherwise. By not focusing on the AIDS crisis whatsoever, or giving voice to the fear of the disease that had permeated American society, it was able to present a different face to the masses than the one people were more familiar with seeing. The film’s separation from the AIDS crisis altogether showed LGBT people, specifically homosexual men, in a light they were not afforded in the 1993 film Philadelphia which focused solely on that theme. It challenged the cultural belief that AIDS was a byproduct of being homosexual, when studies have shown that AIDS could in fact affect anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Unsurprisingly, it was Brokeback Mountain’s divergence from the more ‘popular’ addendums for homosexuality that struck a major chord in unsettling its audiences. Brokeback Mountain was a film centered within the relatively untouched by homosexuality genre of the rural Western American, a lifestyle rooted in simplicity and adherence to conservative social constructs. It was a theme many considered sacred to the American Western concept of masculinity, and so the cowboy callbacks of the imagery in Brokeback Mountain felt like an affront to their way of life.

The lack of LGBT rights on a national level in the US allowed for the continued survival of the mindset that homosexuality was still something to be struck down, or at the very least, kept quiet about. An example of the blind eye in which the majority of American society wished to turn on LGBT matters was the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy created in 1993 by US President Bill Clinton. DADT’s purpose was to remove the question of sexual orientation when it came to jobs within the military. It promised that service members would not be fired simply for being gay (“Lesbian and Gay Men in the U.S. Military: Historical Background”). This did not ensure that LGBT people would be treated well however, should their orientation become known.

Up to and continuing after the film’s release, the volatile reactions caused by early screenings led to intimidation from movie-goers. Whether the early reviews were praising or condemning Brokeback Mountain, one thing remained the same. The potential for and fear of the ‘shame’ if seen going to a film depicting a homosexual relationship prevented many from attending screenings. Even then, the effects of systems like the Production Code and the persevering mindset of homosexuality as ‘other’ was pervasive in American culture. “One survey respondent wrote that ‘the thought of boys kissing freaks some people out, as if you could turn gay by osmosis’” (Benshoff). The negative reactions boiled down to one) religious beliefs, or two) a lack of understanding, or three) both. If one were to look simply at homophobia as caused by a lack of understanding then the impact Brokeback Mountain had on American society would be undeniable. In Brokeback Mountain the portrayal of homosexual behaviour was one that allowed the characters engaging in said behaviour to be seen in a sympathetic light. While the story of Ennis and Jack ultimately end in the ambiguous death of Jack, it is not another example of film punishing the LGBT audience. Rather, it was the condemnation of human society up until the film’s release. It was a bold pointing of the finger at the audience itself, because so long as people reacted negatively to the story of Brokeback Mountain, they too would be perpetuating the mindset of the culture that did not allow Ennis and Jack’s love to be.

Although there was no vilification of either Ennis or Jack, there was vilification of the people who went to see the film. One straight male student told of this encounter, “When I went to see the film with a friend who is also a heterosexual male I was bombarded with questions and accusations from friends and colleagues. Friends snickered and joked, saying that [I] was now a homosexual for simply seeing the movie with another male. A few coworkers asked if we had held hands in the theatre. One female coworker was so disgusted when she discovered I had seen the film that she no longer speaks to me” (Benshoff). The perspective of homosexuality as a part of a person versus a conscious choice wasn’t the only mindset Brokeback Mountain challenged. Yes, the film showed graphic depictions of homosexual sex (graphic for that period of time) previously unseen in American cinema, but what it also displayed was the intimacy and romance of a homosexual relationship. The characterization of Ennis and Jack as largely masculine men was another aspect of the film that did not sit right with viewers, either because they thought it impossible homosexual behaviour in men could be seen as anything less than feminizing, or because it was representation they had never expected to see on the big screen. It contested the imagery that gay relationships, specifically male homosexuality, could only be “bestial, filthy, and degrading” (Benshoff). With all that was thrown Brokeback Mountain’s way, the absolute success of the film, both commercially and artistically, becomes all the more monumental and inspiring.

Whether it could be attributed to the media landslide that preluded and ensued after Brokeback Mountain’s release, it cannot be denied that in the wake of the film and its phenomenon, there has been an increase in the amount of films and media portraying LGBT people. While the depictions of a non-stereotypical homosexual relationship were few and far between in film during the years following 2005, television made up for the lack. What was started with the release of Brokeback Mountain would not end there. Popular culture made sure the story would not be let go so easily. Whatever the intentions were behind the one who repeated, the colloquialisms of Brokeback Mountain were not to be forgotten any time soon, even if they were more often than not used for mockery. If anything, Brokeback Mountain became a sort of code between closeted LGBT people. In fact, films with a distinct LGBT tone continued to echo themes of Brokeback Mountain several years later. Carol, a film released in 2015, the two female lovers reunite in the end and the significance of their reunion is implicit. The 2016 South Korean film “The Handmaiden” showed not a lick of homophobia and instead focused on the strengthening bond between the two female lovers. The Handmaiden too ends with the promise of the two women’s future together. In the 2016 movie Moonlight, the main character ends the film finding his childhood ‘love’ again. The meaning in the men’s final scene together is effused with comfort and strains of hope. In God’s Own Country, released in 2017, the two male lovers are reconciled and begin to build a life together ( “Honour for God's Own Country to Be Compared to Brokeback Mountain, Says Star”). The shift in tone for LGBT films is palpable and impossible not to notice.

Change in regards to LGBT rights and recognition has always been a slow-moving thing. For literature in the years of 2005-2006, there was the ever-present demand that schools and educational systems censor LGBT themed books purely on the basis that they could “promote homosexuality” (Doyle). A study done by Emily Meixner asked students about their comfort level in reading LGBT themed books. The students supported the rights of the collective class to be ‘welcome, respected, valued and safe’, but confessed to feeling uncomfortable with the idea of LGBT themed literature within a class setting. When asked upon the reasoning for this, they revealed that they worried that the inclusion of such literature would put them “at risk for greater personal and professional scrutiny” (Meixner, 95). The shift in society could be felt regardless of personal reservation as with each passing year the quantity of books geared towards LGBT people, specifically youths, grew every year. So, though the steps taken by the leaders of the US have more often than not been ‘too little, too late’, the acceptance of LGBT people is greater with each passing year.

The never failing perseverance of the LGBT community in the face of violence and the threat to their livelihoods will never cease to be a source of inspiration. The film Brokeback Mountain won a total of 142 awards and was nominated for 128 other awards (“Brokeback Mountain”). During the prestigious Academy Awards it won in three categories, Best Achievement in Direction, Best Writing/Adapted Screenplay, and Best Achievement in Music for Motion Pictures/Original Score. It was nominated for Best Achievement in Cinematography and Best Performance for Heath Ledger, Jack Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Finally, it was nominated for the crowning glory of Academy Awards, the Best Motion Picture of the Year, but lost. For any other film this would have been unthinkable, especially after all the other significant wins it received. The loss was widely believed to have been an intentional snub by the Academy, a last ditch effort to ‘punish’ a blatantly kind depiction of homosexuality.

The year is 2015 and the Supreme Court has made same-sex marriage legal throughout all states of the US (“Guides: A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: A Timeline of the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.”). In comes 2016 and the arrival of a low-budget film titled Moonlight with it. Moonlight, the story of a black man that followed pivotal stages throughout his life. Moonlight, the story of a man conflicted by his homosexual desires, but never once is he villainized. Moonlight, the story where neither one of the LGBT characters dies and happiness is more than within the characters’ reach. It was a commercial success, much like Brokeback Mountain was over ten years earlier. The Academy Awards roll around in 2017, and perhaps in some small respect to the film that once told a very similar story, Moonlight takes home the Best Motion Picture of the Year (McKinnon). It was the first ever LGBT film to win such an award, and it will not be the last.

So while “if you can’t fix it, you’ve got to stand it” might have rang true years ago, there must come a time when that can no longer stand (Proulx). That old, crumbling foundation must be ripped out and made anew, built to last and built to grow. Strong enough to hold the weight of all of humanity, with enough flex to adapt as time goes on and people learn and grow, learn and grow, and so on. Sometimes “if you can’t fix it” means you have got to still try anyway, because one never knows just what that effort will yield and just who it might free.